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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
> 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.
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".
Edited my earlier comment to point here. Is your assessment that CFTC is pulling the broader impact fully out of the air, or are likely to try to spin the coverage of events in New York for participants outside of New York as counting as interstate commerce?
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.”
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.
> 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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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
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. That's a big if, though.
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.
What exactly is the difference between a financial derivatives exchange and a gambling platform? Both involve placing bets on uncertain future outcomes.
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.
Insurance protects life and property (including future income). Until you wagered $100 on the Kicks winning, none of your property was threatened by them losing.
Of course not. If a building exists, there is a risk it burns down. Insurance just moves that risk around. The only way to eliminate the risk is to not build anything anywhere.
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.
> 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*
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.
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.
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".
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yea; interstate commerce being the domain of the federal government is one of the more tested legal concepts we have here.
Except it's false, they aren't requesting such a thing.
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.
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).
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..
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.
Except they haven't, because they did not request national relief. They requested state-specific relief.
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.
That is not true? The order was to stop them from operating in the state.
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.
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".
Edited my earlier comment to point here. Is your assessment that CFTC is pulling the broader impact fully out of the air, or are likely to try to spin the coverage of events in New York for participants outside of New York as counting as interstate commerce?
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.
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...
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.
What? It’s in the first paragraph.
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...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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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
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. That's a big if, though.
Donald Trump Jr is a “strategic advisor” at Kalshi and was given equity in the company. Hope that helps.
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.
What exactly is the difference between a financial derivatives exchange and a gambling platform? Both involve placing bets on uncertain future outcomes.
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.
Do you think insurance markets create risk out of thin air too?
Insurance protects life and property (including future income). Until you wagered $100 on the Kicks winning, none of your property was threatened by them losing.
Of course not. If a building exists, there is a risk it burns down. Insurance just moves that risk around. The only way to eliminate the risk is to not build anything anywhere.
Regulations, skill, and access.
One is when the president's son is a strategic advisor to the company and the other is a gambling platform
Laws are for poor people
no, it frames it as a grift economy subsidy.
Friends in high places are worth their weight in gold. Anyone want to bet on how much they weigh?
I mean, officially 225, but does anyone believe that?
(Which is a bit over $15M at today’s spot prices, by the by)
Americans’ continued ability to gamble, err…, trade multi-leg parlays is a matter of national security!
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.
> 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*
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.
[delayed]
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.
There's a legitimate, non-gambling use case: hedging against your existing position in GOOG.
There's no equivalent instrument for sports.
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
The cert I am seeing:
Are you seeing that too? This [1] is the function I am using.Qualys Results [2] for www.cftc.gov Cloudflare in front of Drupal 11
The cert is also valid for: www.cftc.gov accountcreation.cftc.gov cftc.gov smartcheck.gov whistleblower.gov www.smartcheck.gov www.whistleblower.gov
[1] - https://nochan.net/b/Text-Crap/function_fingerprint.sh
[2] - https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=www.cftc.gov&...
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?
An order to _continue_ operation? Has that ever happened before?
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".
If you're a market maker? It's the whole job. They're Federally regulated to do precisely that.
I hope the Kalshi executives remember that New York state police do not report to the CFTC and are not bound by its orders!
nice
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
Wait, so all that Republican talk of support for state's rights was really just all about the racism this whole time? Shocker.
Just listen to the overwhelming silence from the “states’ rights” crowd.
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.
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.
[delayed]
False: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49266746
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.
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.