At page 19 of its motion for preliminary injunction, Kalshi contends that the “public interest” prong of the preliminary injunction standard favors Kalshi because “the public undoubtedly has an interest in seeing its governmental institutions follow the law.” Ironically, the “governmental institutions” that Kalshi was calling out with that statement were the Maryland state agencies for not recognizing the preemptive effect of federal law. Rather, the Court is simply being asked to consider the CFTC’s failure to enforce Rule 40.11(a)(1) in the context of Kalshi’s motion for preliminary injunction, with an eye towards examining whether granting an injunction to Kalshi would serve the public interest where its sports contracts are barred both by a federal statute (the Wire Act) and by a clear and unambiguous agency rule which the CFTC refuses to enforce. In a letter dated April 1, 2025, U.S. Congress member Dina Titus asked the CFTC to “consider whether Kalshi made false claims in its self-certification” in light of Kalshi’s prior judicial statements to the effect that sports-based event contracts “would qualify as prohibited activities under the Commodity Exchange Act and applicable federal regulations.” As a remedy for the alleged “false statement,” Congresswoman Titus has asked the CFTC “to stay the trading of [Kalshi’s] sports event contracts” while it investigates the matter.
Author: Daniel Wallach, Contributor, Daniel Wallach, Contributor https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielwallach/
Published at: 2025-05-27 21:19:23
Still want to read the full version? Full article
