Kalshi’s conflict preemption argument stands on shakier ground, according to defendants. ( Id. pp. 37 – 44.) The Sports Wagering Act complements the CEA in ensuring financial integrity of transactions and protecting participants from abuse. ( Id. p. 38.) Absent a small set of contracts related to collegiate athletics, Kalshi may continue to offer its sports- related contracts so long as it obtains New Jersey licensure. ( Id. pp. 39, 42, 43.) The CEA’s special rule for event contracts expressly recognizes the applicability of state law and New Jersey’s stronger protections relating to sports wagers do not stand as an obstacle to the CEA’s regulation of event contracts, according to defendants. ( Id. pp. 40 – 42.) 2. Analysis Earlier this month, a court in the District of Nevada considered a substantially similar motion for preliminary injunction involving Kalshi. In that case, Kalshi sought to enjoin the Nevada Gaming Commission, Nevada Gaming Control Board, and their members from enforcing Nevada law against its event contracts, particularly those involving sports and election results. KalshiEX, LLC v. Hendrick , Case No. 25 – 00575, 2025 WL 1073495, at *1 – 2 (D. Nev. Apr. 9, 2025). Faced with similar preemption arguments as those presented here, the court first concluded that the plain language of 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A) grants the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over accounts, agreements, and transactions involving swaps or contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery traded or executed on designated exchanges. Id. at *5. Though the paragraph’s second sentence provides that state regulatory authority is not superseded, that sentence must be read in the context of the first, which supersedes SEC and state authority over contracts on designated exchanges. Id. The second sentence therefore merely preserves SEC and state authority over contracts that are not subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. Id.
9
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs