3 ms·

Am I reading this right? The state of New York wants Kalshi to stop offering prediction gambling, excuse me, "event contracts" in New York, and the federal Comm

Am I reading this right? The state of New York wants Kalshi to stop offering prediction gambling, excuse me, "event contracts" in New York, and the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission just ordered Kalshi to keep operating in New York regardless?

paxys 2mo ago
Donald Trump Jr is a “strategic advisor” at Kalshi and was given equity in the company. Hope that helps.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
nickff 2mo ago
Here is a link to a post about the State of New York's case: https://www.shb.com/intelligence/newsletters/securities-litigation-client-alert/2026/schleppenbach-sdny-kalshi-ruling https://www.shb.com/intelligence/newsletters/securities-liti... I am not sure about how the state regulation of betting will turn out (though I would have guessed that it is indeed pre-empted), but the nationwide injunction seems shaky given Trump v Casa: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
- wahern 2mo ago
  I don't think Casa applies here. A nationwide injunction is not the same thing as a universal injunction. A universal injunction benefits non-parties to a case. But if an injunction, especially a TRO, requires nationwide effect to protect the interests of NY, who is a party, then that's fine. Also note that Kalshi is based in NYC, AFAIU; it's not a situation of a state court trying to control the out-of-state actions of a foreign company merely doing business in NY.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
dannyw 2mo ago
Yes. If you take Kalshi out of it, that’s exactly how the law is supposed to work. The State of New York does not have the power to compel NYSE to stop operating in New York either, irrespective of what laws NY passed, as that is with the SEC. They also can’t enforce a law saying companies in New York must file 10Qs every month or something. Again, federal. See: supremacy clause, interstate commerce. (The latter has been significantly expanded beyond its ordinary meaning for centuries; in here, the theory is that New Yorkers not being able to participate in a market ‘hurts’ other interstate market participants).
- decimalenough 2mo ago
  It's kind of hard to take Kalshi out of this, since the whole premise for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's authority here is that Kalshi is a commodity futures trading exchange, not a gambling site.
  - eclipticplane 2mo ago
    When can I take delivery of my 2026 NBA Knicks team, that I purchased through the commodity futures market? I'm available Friday.
  - tyre 2mo ago
    I think the gp just means, “if we put aside that this is a contentious company.” I’m not sure that interstate commerce should apply here—it seems correct that a state can ban gambling, even if it is on the Internet against out-of-state US nationals—but if the CFTC is asserting its pre-emption under existing law, it needs to assert it (as it is doing so here.) It’s pretty clear that this is (a) gambling and (b) explicitly excluded from the CFTC’s legal mandate (“gaming”), but obviously this is about corruption and not a good faith interpretation. I expect this to go to the Supreme Court and for the Court to side with the corruption.
    - nickff 2mo ago
      If Wickard v Filburn is still good law, I don’t understand how the betting market is anything but interstate commerce. Futures trading is betting, especially where they’re settled in cash.
dogtorwoof 2mo ago
Prediction gambling excuse me event contracts excuse me insider trading excuse me that’s the whole point of prediction markets
zaptheimpaler 2mo ago
They did the same thing in Minnesota too. The state voted AGAINST this crap and the CFTC basically says its their jurisdiction and “no you have to allow gambling even if you don’t want it!!!”. DJTs son is on the board of or an advisor to Kalshi and Polymarket, tons of money and influence are bought into this grift. Their right to pillage the public and create a new generation of addicts is more important than what people want or what’s good for them.

paxys 2mo ago

Donald Trump Jr is a “strategic advisor” at Kalshi and was given equity in the company. Hope that helps.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

nickff 2mo ago

Here is a link to a post about the State of New York's case: https://www.shb.com/intelligence/newsletters/securities-litigation-client-alert/2026/schleppenbach-sdny-kalshi-ruling https://www.shb.com/intelligence/newsletters/securities-liti... I am not sure about how the state regulation of betting will turn out (though I would have guessed that it is indeed pre-empted), but the nationwide injunction seems shaky given Trump v Casa: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

wahern 2mo ago
I don't think Casa applies here. A nationwide injunction is not the same thing as a universal injunction. A universal injunction benefits non-parties to a case. But if an injunction, especially a TRO, requires nationwide effect to protect the interests of NY, who is a party, then that's fine. Also note that Kalshi is based in NYC, AFAIU; it's not a situation of a state court trying to control the out-of-state actions of a foreign company merely doing business in NY.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]

dannyw 2mo ago

Yes. If you take Kalshi out of it, that’s exactly how the law is supposed to work. The State of New York does not have the power to compel NYSE to stop operating in New York either, irrespective of what laws NY passed, as that is with the SEC. They also can’t enforce a law saying companies in New York must file 10Qs every month or something. Again, federal. See: supremacy clause, interstate commerce. (The latter has been significantly expanded beyond its ordinary meaning for centuries; in here, the theory is that New Yorkers not being able to participate in a market ‘hurts’ other interstate market participants).

decimalenough 2mo ago
It's kind of hard to take Kalshi out of this, since the whole premise for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's authority here is that Kalshi is a commodity futures trading exchange, not a gambling site.
- eclipticplane 2mo ago
  When can I take delivery of my 2026 NBA Knicks team, that I purchased through the commodity futures market? I'm available Friday.
- tyre 2mo ago
  I think the gp just means, “if we put aside that this is a contentious company.” I’m not sure that interstate commerce should apply here—it seems correct that a state can ban gambling, even if it is on the Internet against out-of-state US nationals—but if the CFTC is asserting its pre-emption under existing law, it needs to assert it (as it is doing so here.) It’s pretty clear that this is (a) gambling and (b) explicitly excluded from the CFTC’s legal mandate (“gaming”), but obviously this is about corruption and not a good faith interpretation. I expect this to go to the Supreme Court and for the Court to side with the corruption.
  - nickff 2mo ago
    If Wickard v Filburn is still good law, I don’t understand how the betting market is anything but interstate commerce. Futures trading is betting, especially where they’re settled in cash.

dogtorwoof 2mo ago

Prediction gambling excuse me event contracts excuse me insider trading excuse me that’s the whole point of prediction markets

zaptheimpaler 2mo ago

They did the same thing in Minnesota too. The state voted AGAINST this crap and the CFTC basically says its their jurisdiction and “no you have to allow gambling even if you don’t want it!!!”. DJTs son is on the board of or an advisor to Kalshi and Polymarket, tons of money and influence are bought into this grift. Their right to pillage the public and create a new generation of addicts is more important than what people want or what’s good for them.