CFTC declares market emergency, orders Kalshi to continue to operate in New York

126

mmichaefe about 3 hours ago 111 commentsRead Article on cftc.gov

HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

81% Positive

Analyzed from 3699 words in the discussion.

Discussion (111 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

akerl_•about 2 hours ago

EDIT: see DannyBee's comment below ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49266746 ). It does look like the CFTC has extrapolated the "nationwide" out of either some novel interpretation of the filing or just entirely fabricated it as their justification for their action.

I've got no love for Kalshi, but "orders Kalshi to continue operate in New York" doesn't seem to be present anywhere in the actual release.

The article presents the sequence of events as:

1. The State of NY files a lawsuit against Kalshi under the theory that it can be regulated by state gambling laws.

2. The State of NY files for a temporary restraining order requiring Kalshi to halt trading nationally, not just in NY.

3. Kalshi reaches out to the CFTC to claim that NY doesn't have the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

4. The CFTC agrees and uses their authority to override the TRO.

That seems pretty aligned with how interstate commerce is regulated and managed in the US.

anigbrowl•about 2 hours ago

I think it's good to have the official context from the state of NY as well, which argues that Kalshi meets the state's standards for gambling; has serially refused to get the required licenses, and serves customers aged 18-20 in a market where gambling is restricted by law to people over 21.

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2026/governor-hochul-and-att...

My impression was that NY wanted a TRO to stop Kalshi operating in New York, not nationally. A TRO seems like a rather extreme measure in that it assumes the plaintiffs win the lawsuit as a premise, but I guess that's partly a function of how long New York has been trying and failing to obtain compliance with its gaming laws, and intended to provoke a preliminary hearing into the merits of the case (vs letting the litigation drag on for years without anyhting changing).

bhouston•about 1 hour ago

Your claim here is wrong:

> 2. The State of NY files for a temporary restraining order requiring Kalshi to halt trading nationally, not just in NY.

The State of New York did *NOT* file a temporary restraining order, neither in NY or nationally. Please find a citation of that if you want to claim it is true.

Rather the State of New York filed suit here to stop operations in New York:

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2026/governor-hochul-and-att...

Specifically the lawsuit asks for:

"Permanently enjoining Respondent and its principals, agents, and employees from operating an unlawful gambling business, or otherwise advancing gambling activity, or profiting from gambling activity, within or from New York or to persons in New York, without being licensed by the New York State Gaming Commission"

tsimionescu•22 minutes ago

That claim is coming directly from the CFTC, it is not this user's novel claim.

It seems that overall the CFTC and the NYAG are presenting materially different event time lines, so as an outsider it's a bit unclear what is actually happening.

aliasxneo•about 2 hours ago

It seems that New York is asking the court for a temporary restraining order that would prohibit Kalshi from offering all event contracts nationwide. I also have zero love for Kalshi, but I can see why such a request would be concerning, regardless of whether I think Kalshi is a degenerate trash heap.

mrandish•25 minutes ago

In saying, "New York seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting KalshiEX, LLC from offering all event contracts nationwide" the CFTC's press release substantially misrepresents the filing by the NY AG. On page 29, the filing requests "Permanently enjoining Respondent and its principals, agents, and employees from operating an unlawful gambling business, or otherwise advancing gambling activity, or profiting from gambling activity, within or from New York or to persons in New York, without being licensed by the New York State Gaming Commission" (https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/new-york...).

Since Kalshi's HQ is in NY, I guess the most charitable interpretation is that perhaps the CFTC's statement is based on the assumption granting the TRO would have the net effect of disrupting Kalshi's operations everywhere until they can serve the site from outside NY. Of course, without disclosing that extrapolation, the statement is still factually incorrect.

Setting aside that significant error, I suspect this CFTC order is an attempt to create a federal vs state conflict in the hope the judge will suspend or defer any TRO until that issue is decided. I imagine Kalshi will file a response tomorrow arguing exactly that. Ultimately, this will still come down to whether Kalshi can be regulated by states, and if so, whether it's gambling.

akerl_•about 2 hours ago

Yea; interstate commerce being the domain of the federal government is one of the more tested legal concepts we have here.

dlcarrier•25 minutes ago

…And growing wheat on your own land to feed your own cattle somehow counts as interstate commerce, despite no commerce taking place and the wheat never leaving your property, let alone the state. (Wickard v. Filburn)

akersten•about 1 hour ago

hasn't stopped states from trying to impose their internet rules on visitors everywhere :/

PaulDavisThe1st•about 1 hour ago

Just around, or slightly around the level of testing that Roe vs Wade prior to Dobbs. Or a bakers dozen of other established precedents that were "one of the more tested legal concepts" until ... recently.

DannyBee•about 2 hours ago

Except it's false, they aren't requesting such a thing.

aliasxneo•about 1 hour ago

Not literally. I think the text in question is: "within or from New York or to persons in New York." Where CFTC is arguing that "from" would have interstate consequences. I'm not a legal expert, though, so I have no idea if something similar has been fought in court before.

edit

Interesting, I found KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty [1] which seems strikingly similar to this case and was ruled in favor of Kalshi.

"The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. The appellate court held that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) exclusive jurisdiction over swaps, including sports-related event contracts traded on CFTC-licensed DCMs."

[1]: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/25...

SpicyLemonZest•about 2 hours ago

That's not true at all. New York is asking the court to stop the Kalshi executives, who are located in New York, from flagrantly violating the sports gambling laws of New York. Kalshi would be free to move to another state where sports gambling is legal if they wanted to keep the platform up.

tripletao•16 minutes ago

I think the point of confusion or obfuscation is that Kalshi is headquartered in NYC, so an order prohibiting them from offering bets/contracts "within or from New York" has the effect of prohibiting them nationwide. They could move to a friendlier state, but they presumably would rather not.

beckford•about 1 hour ago

The most important lines to me are the CFTC Chairman's quote:

> These are financial exchanges that offer financial instruments and operate across state lines. They match the bid from a resident of one state with the offer of a resident from another state and submit the trade to a clearinghouse that backstops the transactions of customers throughout the country. New York has no business regulating these interstate financial markets.

If true, it seems quite irrelevant that NY is limiting its suit to NY customers. NY would be restricting trade to people in other states. (I am not a fan or user of Kalshi)

everforward•about 1 hour ago

That’s pretty normal though, and has been for ages. A lot of states have random laws around the things you can sell there, even though it would prevent an out of state entity from selling the product there.

Liquor laws come to mind, you usually need special distribution stuff per state.

It would be a wild expansion of the commerce clause to prevent states from regulating what can be sold inside the state.

galleywest200•about 1 hour ago

Isn't this how gambling works though? You and I place a similar value of chips on a table, then the winner walks it over to a third party (the counter at the casino) to exchange the chips for currency?

SpicyLemonZest•36 minutes ago

It's a relatively uncommon structure for gambling, and things that do work that way (like casual sports bets between friends) are often exempt from local gambling laws. Traditional sports betting was done directly between a gambler and their sportsbook of choice at whatever profit-maximizing odds the bookie chose.

tracerbulletx•about 2 hours ago

That is not true? The order was to stop them from operating in the state.

9cb14c1ec0•about 1 hour ago

You are correct, but New York also apparently sees their jurisdiction as nationwide when the thing being wagered on has some proximity to the state. If you read the petition, it has language like this:

> New York also prohibits sports wagering on events in which New York college teams participate

Ultimately, this suit is about protecting state gambling taxes and incumbent casinos. I guess I don't feel a particular love for either side.

akerl_•about 2 hours ago

Do you have a source for that? From the release:

> In the lawsuit, filed on July 31, New York seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting KalshiEX, LLC from offering all event contracts nationwide and more than $36 billion in damages.

DannyBee•about 2 hours ago

Lawyer here:

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/new-york...

This is the complaint.

If you go to page 29 you'll see what they requested.

The claim they are trying to prevent them from offering all event contracts nationwide is simply false. The closest anywhere is a claim to enjoin them from violating some federal criminal statutes that they would not be violating if they were not operating in new york illegally (IE do not stop them from operating nationwide).

You can also see their is no specific number on the damages. In fact, the only specific number is the request for Kalshi to pay $2000 in costs to the state of NY.

The CFTC is, understandably, relying on people not bothering to read it and so has put out an "alternate set of facts".

phire•about 2 hours ago

I think what the CFTC are arguing is that offering contracts in 49 states (everywhere except New York) is not "Nationwide".

So yes, technically the restraining order is preventing Kalshi from offering Nationwide contracts.

tracerbulletx•about 2 hours ago

I mean, the filing?

By letter dated October 24, 2025, the Gaming Commission directed Kalshi to “cease and desist from illegally operating, advertising, promoting, administering, managing, or otherwise making available an unlicensed mobile sports wagering platform in New York State in connection with any sports event.”

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/kalshiex...

SpicyLemonZest•about 2 hours ago

A sibling comment has provided the source, but I want to separately emphasize that you must unlearn your instincts that the federal government wouldn't lie to you. Most government agencies are under a top-down mandate to tell lies whenever Donald Trump or someone who's bribed him would benefit.

Avicebron•about 2 hours ago

I think the question is whether or not this is damaging to the case that the Kalshi and others could be regulated state by state..

akerl_•about 2 hours ago

I (unfortunately) think that the NY AG screwed up our opportunity to press that question by aiming nationally. The CFTC got to skip that and just shut down the national TRO.

I'd love to see another state push for a state-specific restriction and see how that plays out.

DannyBee•about 2 hours ago

Except they haven't, because they did not request national relief. They requested state-specific relief.

refulgentis•about 2 hours ago

There were 3 alarmingly assertive, not even wrong in the Pauli sense, comments I saw in this thread, this being the last, and it turns out they’re all by you.

HN in general gets ahead of its skis a ton on legal stuff, it’s not personal. I deserve what I’ll get for speaking plainly to you, I hope the fact I’m speaking plainly and incurring cost will encourage you to move slightly more slowly.

In order:

Regulating interstate commerce is a fed thing, yes, that doesn’t mean states are unable to do anything at all to companies operating in multiple states. It was jarring to hear that described as one of the most settled principles we have.

NYS was not asking for a national TRO. It was jarring to read that asserted.

The first paragraph of the CFTC release we are commenting on says it ordered Kalshi to be able operate nationally. It was jarring to read it was made up that the CFTC ordered it to be able to operate.

semiquaver•about 2 hours ago

What? It’s in the first paragraph.

  > August 11, 2026
  >
  > WASHINGTON — The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today exercised its emergency authority in response to KalshiEX, LLC’s notification of a market emergency and ordered the exchange to continue to operate in accordance with the Commodity Exchange Act’s Core Principles.

Further, the operative document that this press release is about is titled “ORDER DIRECTING KALSHI TO CONTINUE EXERCISING DCM FUNCTIONS”: https://www.cftc.gov/media/14471/OGC_MarketEmergencyDeclarat...

akerl_•about 2 hours ago

The "order" there is effectively a reset button to the TRO. Its function is to say "you can ignore the TRO and continue business as usual". It doesn't force Kalshi to continue operating if they had their own reasons for pausing operations.

semiquaver•about 2 hours ago

You are simply wrong. The order invokes statutory emergency authority to require markets to operate as before. It’s materially different from cancelling the TRO (which has not been granted)

dannyw•about 2 hours ago

The order actually does legally require Kalshi to continue operating, and unless they successfully appeal, Kalshi would be breaking federal law.

Market regulators do have this power.

DannyBee•about 2 hours ago

2 is false, actually.

If you read the complaint, the prayer for relief is quite clear that they only are trying to stop them from operating in new york, deliberately offering gambling to new yorkers, etc.

There is no relief requested nationwide.

kcb•about 1 hour ago

Isn't the act of not offering something in NY = to not offering it nationwide?

decimalenough•about 2 hours ago

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?

dannyw•about 1 hour 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•about 1 hour 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.

tyre•about 1 hour 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.

tadfisher•about 1 hour ago

Maybe an "event outcome prediction contract" simply ought not to be considered a "commodity" under any consistent interpretation of the law and the English fucking language.

eclipticplane•about 1 hour ago

When can I take delivery of my 2026 NBA Knicks team, that I purchased through the commodity futures market? I'm available Friday.

dogtorwoof•about 1 hour ago

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

nickff•about 2 hours ago

Here is a link to a post about the State of New York's case: 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

wahern•about 2 hours 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.

paxys•about 2 hours ago

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

pamcake•about 2 hours ago

So the CFTC frames Kalshi as a financial derivatives exchange for the financial instrument category of event contracts, dismissing NYs characterization of it as a gambling/betting platform. Interesting.

pdonis•about 2 hours ago

What exactly is the difference between a financial derivatives exchange and a gambling platform? Both involve placing bets on uncertain future outcomes.

skillina•about 2 hours ago

Traditional derivatives can be used to trade the risk that would already exist with or without the existence of the derivatives market. Prediction markets create risk out of thin air.

charcircuit•about 2 hours ago

Do you think insurance markets create risk out of thin air too?

amazingman•about 2 hours ago

Regulations, skill, and access.

morkalork•about 2 hours ago

One is when the president's son is a strategic advisor to the company and the other is a gambling platform

cyanydeez•about 2 hours ago

no, it frames it as a grift economy subsidy.

Pxtl•about 2 hours ago

Laws are for poor people

mavbo•about 2 hours ago

Friends in high places are worth their weight in gold. Anyone want to bet on how much they weigh?

roughly•about 2 hours ago

I mean, officially 225, but does anyone believe that?

(Which is a bit over $15M at today’s spot prices, by the by)

stock_toaster•about 1 hour ago

With “Chevron Deference” struck down, I assume this means the courts will get to decide if it is in fact gambling or not?

impish9208•about 2 hours ago

Americans’ continued ability to gamble, err…, trade multi-leg parlays is a matter of national security!

xp84•about 2 hours ago

It was never more virtuous to be options-trading GME shares on Robinhood than gambling at the dog track or betting on basketball games. The only reason some regulators are going after Kalshi or Polymarket is that the casino owners are lining these particular politicians' pockets more than the futures trading companies are.

I actually am not opinionated on it other than all kinds of gambling are basically the same -- and that includes a lot of the ways stock market is used in practice.

I do admit gambling addiction is a real thing and that this new super convenient and easy and legal option incrementally brings more people into that world of pain. But I also think it's stupid to ban gambling like they did with alcohol in the last century. It'll just put more control in the hands of the mob.

The mob. There's an organization that I bet is also eagerly lining the pockets of these "kill Kalshi" regulators.

asddubs•about 2 hours ago

I think you are right that it's all gambling. Kalshi seems more predatory in how it targets people. Perhaps advertising gambling in any way should be outlawed.

wredcoll•about 1 hour ago

I agree with you that gambling on options via Robinhood is not great, but it at least theoretically has value to society and has a long history of being used by slightly more responsible entities which makes it harder to just, say, ban it out right.

Betting on the superbowl winner is none of that.

unethical_ban•about 1 hour ago

Wrong. Totally. Options on GME and win/loss bets on basketball and dog racing are not the same as the level of prop bets and betting on things occuring.

Totally completely wrong.

arjie•about 2 hours ago

This seems correct, even though I think it's unfortunate that these prediction markets are ruining so many people's lives.

> In the lawsuit, filed on July 31, New York seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting KalshiEX, LLC from offering all event contracts nationwide and more than $36 billion in damages.

This seems naturally the territory of the CFTC. They have exclusive right to regulate futures and derivatives contracts, which Congress handed them. Also, it seems straightforwardly anti-commerce-clause to allow NY to prohibit Kalshi from offering these contracts nationwide.

rgmerk•about 1 hour ago

I'm with the state of NY on the merits here. They're basically BetFair, and they should be subject to regulation like it.

tyre•about 1 hour ago

Sadly for you, this SCOTUS is not a meritocracy.

denkmoon•about 2 hours ago

An order to _continue_ operation? Has that ever happened before?

akerl_•about 2 hours ago

It's not an order to Kalshi to continue operations. They overrode the TRO from the state court. The target of the order is the state court / executive, essentially saying "You cannot halt Kalshi's operations via the TRO".

msandford•about 2 hours ago

If you're a market maker? It's the whole job. They're Federally regulated to do precisely that.

Terr_•about 2 hours ago

> said Chairman Michael S. Selig. “Congress did not intend for derivatives exchanges to be regulated under a patchwork of state gaming laws.

Ah yes, "derivatives" which are "not intended to fall under gaming laws" such as... *checks Kalshi website* 58 million dollars riding on which team is the 2027 NFL champion.

Oh yeah, totally a financial derivative there, not related to gambling at all. *sigh*

caleblloyd•about 1 hour ago

Totally a financial derivative for Mattress Mack, but probably not for the rest of us.

xp84•about 2 hours ago

ELI5 why it's better for you to place a $10,000 bet that, say, GOOG falls below $300 by February 2028, than to bet the same that the Pats win the Super Bowl? They're both gambling.

rcxdude•about 1 hour ago

The fact that you can turn useful financial instruments into a casino isn't really a great argument for just leaning into it by abandoning all connection to any real utility.

Terr_•about 1 hour ago

I don't think I can make a good ELI5 argument for (or against) that one as-written, because there are multiple differences going on at the same time. For example:

1. When you "lose" shorting a stock your potential loss is infinite, because you might be on the hook to buy (and then give away) GOOG at an arbitrarily high price. In contrast, the super-bowl bet is probably a fixed amount.

2. In the opposite direction, it's hard to see how the Super Bowl bet can really be hedging to reduce how much you're relying on chance in your life... not unless you happen to own a store selling single-team merchandise and you want to limit how much money you might lose if nobody wants to buy it.

subtlejellyfish•about 2 hours ago

There's a legitimate, non-gambling use case: hedging against your existing position in GOOG.

There's no equivalent instrument for sports.

BLKNSLVR•about 1 hour ago

That sounds _exactly_ like a gambling use case.

SpicyLemonZest•about 1 hour ago

As far as I can tell, binary options on "GOOG below $300 by February 2028" do not exist in the US market. I absolutely think that single-stock binary options are terrible gambling products and should not be allowed.

The thing that I suspect you're intending to describe, a put option expiring in January 2028 (there is no such contract for February) with a break-even at $300, has a different structure which greatly increases its utility for financial purposes and greatly decreases its appeal for gambling. It's hard for a casual bettor to even identify what the correct product is (it was the $355 strike at close of market today, but it may be different tomorrow!), bets are only accepted in increments of $5,500, and your winnings may be minimal unless Google falls either more quickly or more severely. If I'm trying to hedge my Google exposure, though, I'm perfectly happy with the scenario where I didn't win much because Google didn't go down much.

ok123456•about 1 hour ago

Can't New York go after payment processors and stop anyone from paying them money or people cashing out?

plorg•30 minutes ago

Laughable excuse for a country that will declare a gambling company systemically important to the economy.

anadem•about 2 hours ago

Firefox says "Error Code: SEC_ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER" for that CFTC link (untrusted certificate issued by Avast in Prague) and won't open the site

akerl_•about 2 hours ago

Not seeing that here; is your connection being MITM'd?

Issuer I'm seeing is Sectigo Public Server Authentication CA OV R36.

Avast is nominally an AV/VPN company; are you running their tooling on your machine?

Bender•about 2 hours ago

The cert I am seeing:

    Testing via IPv4:
    IPv4 (2 address(es)):
    104.18.25.94
    104.18.24.94
      subject   : C=US, ST=District of Columbia, O=Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CN=www.cftc.gov
      issuer    : C=GB, O=Sectigo Limited, CN=Sectigo Public Server Authentication CA OV R36
      SAN       : DNS:www.cftc.gov, DNS:accountcreation.cftc.gov, DNS:cftc.gov, DNS:smartcheck.gov, DNS:whistleblower.gov, DNS:www.smartcheck.gov, DNS:www.whistleblower.gov
      sha1      : 42:AC:E2:34:10:93:10:9B:0E:45:6E:BC:A9:D5:B8:7D:C4:8B:BE:A5
      sha256    : E5:C9:F2:9F:4E:6C:30:51:AA:6B:63:AD:AD:F9:58:A4:E0:3E:7A:32:E9:2C:AB:8D:ED:4F:24:4D:D6:F0:DE:E8
      validity  : Oct 23 00:00:00 2025 GMT -> Nov  1 23:59:59 2026 GMT (81 days left)
      tls       : TLSv1.3 / 
      Verify return code: 0 (ok)

Are you seeing that too? This [1] is the function I am using. Claude's Improved version over my old chicken scratch.

Qualys Results [2] for www.cftc.gov Cloudflare in front of Drupal 11

[1] - https://nochan.net/b/Text-Crap/function_fingerprint2.sh

[2] - https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=www.cftc.gov&...

EGreg•about 1 hour ago

“New York intends to make event contract derivatives waste away under its iron curtain of state gaming laws before the courts get the chance to issue final rulings,” said Chairman Michael S. Selig.

President Donald J. Trump nominated Michael S. Selig to serve as the 16th Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on October 27, 2025. The U.S. Senate confirmed him on December 18, 2025, and he was sworn into office on December 22, 2025.

This is the time for crypto projects to enjoy Federal protection.

high-priest•about 2 hours ago

nice

yieldcrv•about 2 hours ago

phenomenal and I want to address snarky comments here

the “states rights” crowd has always used laws passed by Congress, which the CEA has been. other examples such as a Supreme Court overruling itself made a national regulation fall back to the states solely because Congress has not and has never passed a law on the topic, there is insufficient consensus on proposed laws so those topics will remain at the states

in this case, the actual argument is that the case should be heard by the courts at all, and NY wanted to halt operations WHILE it was heard by the courts. CFTC overruled the pre-verdict halting

and finally, the courts of course will likely not result in anything, as the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is clear that federal law is supreme when there is a conflict, and the CFTC chooses to leverage that

federal government can always choose to ignore a state law, as it does in some markets

georgemcbay•about 2 hours ago

Wait, so all that Republican talk of support for state's rights was really just all about the racism this whole time? Shocker.

dmix•about 1 hour ago

It's disingenuous to pretend the current US admin prioritizes state rights or separation of powers. They have very explicitly pushed an ideology of unitary power and maximizing their control of federal agencies over congress and state powers.

georgemcbay•33 minutes ago

The Republicans don't just control the executive, they also control both chambers of Congress (and, lets be real, the Supreme Court as well).

The fact that they don't act like it and just allow the executive to do whatever it wants doesn't absolve them of responsibility for what the executive does.

SpicyLemonZest•about 2 hours ago

I hope the Kalshi executives remember that New York state police do not report to the CFTC and are not bound by its orders!

quink•about 2 hours ago

Just listen to the overwhelming silence from the “states’ rights” crowd.

brink•about 2 hours ago

This has little to do with NY governing NY. NY was attempting to govern Kalshi in other states, which it doesn't have the authority to do.

anigbrowl•about 1 hour ago

Legal filings by the State of New York indicate that this was not in fact the case and they were asking Kalshi to halt offering their product to the public in the state of NY only.

sigmarule•about 2 hours ago

False: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49266746

freejazz•about 1 hour ago

Kalshi is a NY company, why can't the NY AG govern what businesses in NY do again?

waterheater•about 2 hours ago

Most people invoke the "states' rights" platitude when the federal government oversteps on constitutional matters that haven't been specifically legislated. In this case, Congress already passed a law regulating these activities, and it seems pretty clear-cut that Kalshi engages in interstate commerce, so New York will likely lose if this gets to the Supreme Court.

That's not to say I think event prediction markets are good. In fact, I think they should be banned. That doesn't change my analysis of the current situation.

wredcoll•about 1 hour ago

> In this case, Congress already passed a law regulating these activities, and it seems pretty clear-cut that Kalshi engages in interstate commerce, so New York will likely lose if this gets to the Supreme Court.

That is a wild take. Interstate regulatory power does not prevent a state from passing laws regulating things happening inside its own state.