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.
I also don't see why _sports_ betting is so especially bad - even if New York were successful here, Kalshi would still be able to offer it's degenerate gamblers all sorts of stupid bets in culture, politics, weather, etc. When I grew up, the only thing you could bet on was horses and dogs... so the gamblers were really into form guides and horses. If the only thing they could gamble on was politics and news markets, they would just obsess over that instead.
What's bad about sports gambling is that it doesn't follow the model you're describing. The AGs point towards a study (https://perma.cc/4SF5-VGZH) which finds that legalizing sports betting does not just reallocate money that was going to go to gambling anyway. Instead it crowds out savings. There are people who will explicitly tell pollsters and journalists (see e.g. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-12/gen-z-inv... from yesterday) that they engage in sports betting because they see it as a fun alternative to traditional investments.
That study is measuring the effect of the introduction of _any_ modern online betting to these jurisdictions; before it was legalised there was no equivalent other than going to a casino or racetrack. But that genie can't be put back in the bottle just by restricting sports betting to sports books, as NY is asking for, now that all sorts of other prop bets are available as substitutes (and also sports betting on state-licensed sites). IMO regulators should focus on forcing the market makers to offer tighter spreads so prediction markets (and options etc.) are less negative-expectation for retail punters.
3 voted to allow the executive order rescinding birthright citizenship.
1 voted against the order, but on the reasoning that it violated a law from the early 1900s, not the Constitution.
> The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore, the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production.
There were similar issues dating back to the founding of the country. However nobody pays those any heed because it destroys the ideological claims they're trying to make.
Oh, okay. We'll just pretend this makes any fucking sense. Glad that's all cleared up!
If New York has this jurisdiction(management of for profit incorporation's in New York) Kalshi would have to reorganize somewhere else to continue operations.
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)