Maryland federal court opinion denying Kalshi an injunction

What the court held

1. Swaps assumed. The court assumed the contracts are swaps and decided the case on preemption alone.
2. No field preemption. Regulating gambling is a core state power, so a presumption against preemption applies, and Kalshi did not show that Congress clearly meant to strip states of that power over sports wagers on a designated contract market.
3. Exclusive jurisdiction read narrowly. The exclusive-jurisdiction clause mainly divides authority among federal agencies such as the CFTC and the SEC. The savings clause is ambiguous and, on balance, cuts against field preemption.
4. The statute's structure. The special rule refers to activity unlawful under state law, and the Act's express preemption clause covers gaming only for certain transactions. Both suggest Congress did not mean to displace state gaming law broadly.
5. No conflict preemption. Kalshi could get a Maryland sports-wagering license and still meet its federal obligations.
6. Other factors not reached. Because Kalshi was unlikely to succeed, the court did not decide irreparable harm, the balance of equities or the public interest.

Why it matters

Where it fits in the case

Kalshi v. Maryland (D. Md.)U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, 1:25-cv-01283

1. April 21, 2025Complaint filed.
2. Aug. 1, 2025Judge Adam B. Abelson denies Kalshi's preliminary-injunction motion, finding no likelihood of success on preemption. This opinion
3. Aug. 6, 2025Kalshi's appeal docketed in the Fourth Circuit.
4. Aug. 13, 2025Kalshi withdraws its motion for an injunction pending appeal after Maryland's counsel gave written assurance (Aug. 12, 2025) that the state would not enforce against Kalshi while the Fourth Circuit appeal is pending.

Full docket timeline and status

Read and cite it

• Memorandum opinionPDF · GovInfo, U.S. Government Publishing Office