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.
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).
> 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"
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.
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.
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...
I'm not sure how to explain all this without writing a 70 page dissertation on HN, and it's probably not worth it :)
Overall - this is a wildly complicated area. To give you an idea how complicated: Ignoring state law, transmitting gambling information for sports events over the wire is a federal crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 1084(a), which makes it a crime for a person “engaged in the business of betting or wagering” knowingly to use an interstate or foreign wire facility to transmit bets/wagers or information assisting bets/wagers “on any sporting event or contest.”
(It's legal if you are transmitting from a jurisdiction where it's legal to a jurisdiction where it's legal).
This has been upheld repeatedly for sporting events.
New york can, and did, include a claim to enjoing them from violating this act, which has absolutely no pre-emption issue because it's not a state law.
The case you cited is going to end up in the supreme court, where it will be a toss up. (in previous supreme courts, it would be a non-starter and the third circuit would have been summarily reversed)
> 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)
Put the genie back in the bottle and ban online sports betting. If somebody wants to place a bet on sport, make them physically go to a betting shop or the racetrack.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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".
The "emergency powers" they speak of are 7 U.S.C. § 12a(9), and they are quite specific.
It gives them the authority to direct a registered entity to do a few specific things. None of those things are relevant to here. It's stuff like emergency margin requirements, position limits, etc. Not "violate state law". It gives them no power to enable a registered entity to violate a TRO, or anything like that. Such a power would have to come through pre-emption.
The CEA gives them zero authority to preempt state law directly, and any pre-emption would have to be argued to already have occurred under the Commodity Exchange Act. They'll argue it occurs because of their order, but it actually doesn't meet the requirements to do that, so then they'll argue the CEA preempts state law.
As you may imagine, this has been argued about before, for a very very very long time.
Gambling is core state police power, and has been found so many times. As such, presumptions against pre-emption would apply, etc. Even in the current court that ignores precedent, using an esoteric made-for-specific-situations emergency power statute like this one would to preempt new york/etc (this is not the only case) law would run clearly afoul of the so-called major questions doctrine.
Lastly, the current CEA regulations actually ban event contracts that are unlawful under state law (17 CFR 40.11):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/40.11
Prohibition. A registered entity shall not list for trading or accept for clearing on or through the registered entity any of the following: ...
1. (1) An agreement, contract, transaction, or swap ... that involves, relates to, or references terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or an activity that is unlawful under any State or Federal law;
So trying to pre-empt state law when the existing regulations clearly don't allow event contracts that are disallowed under state law is ... not likely to succeed.
Also note that New York has claimed a violation of the wire act in there, and in particular 18 U.S.C. § 1084(a). This is a federal statute that makes it illegal to transmit sports betting information over the wire (it's okay if it's from a jurisdiction where it's legal to a jurisdiction where it's legal). They have asked the court to enjoin them from violating this. This claim is here because it avoids all the pre-emption issues - it's a federal statute. So New York is also hedging their bets on the state preemption issue.
All that said, there is also a CFTC-designated contract market that Kalshi operates, and that they could likely exercise significantly more power over, and New York can order them around less on. But that is likely to end up in the supreme court, and harder to predict. Any other court the answer would be clear - congress doesn't have the authority to regulate purely intra-state gambling, etc.
What consequences, if any, could the CFTC face for this?
So yes, technically the restraining order is preventing Kalshi from offering Nationwide contracts.
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...
I'd love to see another state push for a state-specific restriction and see how that plays out.
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.
> 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.
Market regulators do have this power.
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.
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).
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.
It provides another source off information, and there’s much less insider trading risk.
“”Event outcome prediction contracts”” on sports, clinical trials, is late stage capitalism, and yes, bullshit.
Like, why would the same agency regulating wheat futures also be responsible for regulating event contracts? I know the simple answer is that Congress said they should be, but conceptually it's a bit odd.
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
And, in fact, there is a concept called an “insurable interest” that is intended to prevent this kind of thing.
If I buy an insurance contract that will pay me if your house burns down and then I burn down your house, then I’ve obviously committed arson, but I have also likely purchased that insurance contract illegally. And I don’t even need to burn down your house for that contract to be illegal.
(IANAL)
Versus when you’re financially wagering that your neighbor’s house burns down. (I.e whether you get paid back if the misfortune impacts you, vs you getting paid if misfortune visits someone else.)
Which can provide much needed liquidity to the market.
(IANAL. In the US this seems to largely be a state law issue. California’s law, to my quick non-expert skimming, is really quite clear on this point.)
There are a thousand of exchanges that have no risk on my life, but that doesn’t mean they don’t impact others.
In a similar vein, companies that run skill competitions (hole-in-one prizes, half-court shots, etc.) can and regularly do buy insurance on those events.
Under this theory, Kalshi is arguably not trading in commodities, but insurance, which is state-regulated.
In the case of those “make a free throw from half court and win a car” competitions, the risk is a known value: the prize sponsor’s wholesale vehicle cost. The sponsor pays a premium for each contest, which is calculated based on the likelihood of someone winning.
This is a very well established insurance market. You as an individual can go out and buy hole-in-one insurance. It’s more popular in Korea and Japan where there is a strong societal expectation of throwing a lavish party if one hits a hole in one. Here in the States, it’ll cover a round of drinks for the clubhouse.
In the case of the bar, the Kalshi bet is functioning as an insurance policy against a potentially open-ended loss. The bar could be packed, the U.S. wins and everyone drinks the bar dry. So Kalshi is fulfilling a legitimate business role here.
But insurance is boring and highly regulated. The bar could likely have bought an equivalent policy from an underwriter in the Financial District. Or frankly from a rich regular. Kalshi wants to make insane amounts of money from degenerate gamblers, and to be immune from state regulators who are more answerable to citizens than the CFTC commissioners. Hence adopting the fig leaf of “futures contracts.”
If you thought I’m on Kalshi’s side here, I’m definitely not.
https://www.ncsl.org/financial-services/prediction-markets-2...
Would Kalshi allow people to bet on whether Kalshi will be banned in a particular state
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.
Betting on the superbowl winner is none of that.
Totally completely wrong.
> 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.
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*
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.
_________
P.S.: Let's flip it around: If we assume shorting GOOG is the same as sports-gambling, then why (AFAIK) has no bookie or casino ever even tried to offer the same kind of bet, where you get $X now but you're obligated to supply $THING later?
Does that absence tell us something about an important difference between them?
There's no equivalent instrument for sports.
Options on the sports team's parent company. I mean you want to hedge against financial losses due to on-field performance but also commercial performance, right? What is the utility of hedging purely against on-field performance?
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.
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?
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)
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&...
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.
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
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.
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.
That is a wild take. Interstate regulatory power does not prevent a state from passing laws regulating things happening inside its own state.