The United States regulator has urgently filed an emergency motion to block Kalshi, a US prediction market, from offering election betting contracts. The submission comes just hours after the judge’s decision to overturn a previous order halting Kalshi’s election markets.
According to a Sept. 6 court filing, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) requested an “emergency stay” of the court’s decision that overturned its order to prohibit Kalshi from listing its election contracts for trading on that same day.
CFTC unable to make informed decision without court’s reasoning
The regulator requested that the court “stay the vacatur” for 14 days following the issuance of its detailed opinion explaining the denial of the order.
The CFTC argued that without the “benefit of the Court’s reasoning,” it is unable to make an informed decision “whether to appeal, nor is it able to fully brief a motion for stay pending any forthcoming appeal.”
“Time is of the essence in the issuance of a stay. The CFTC expects that Plaintiff Kalshi will immediately list the relevant election contracts and that trading will begin as soon as the contracts list,” the CFTC explained.
It supported its reasoning by pointing out that Kalshi has already announced on its homepage, “Election Markets are Coming to Kalshi!”
The filing comes on the same day as Judge Jia Cobb of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruling in favor of Kalshi offering products that allow people to bet on who will win the US election on Nov. 4.
Lawyers say ruling was a ‘huge win’ for Kalshi
Variant Fund chief legal officer Jake Chervinsky stated in a Sept. 7 X post that Kalshi had a “HUGE win,” but similarly, he would like to see the judicial opinion first.
“I want to see the opinion before I start dancing on the grave of the administrative state, but this is even more evidence that the best way to deal with regulatory overreach is to FILE MORE LAWSUITS,” Chervinsky added.
The CFTC initially submitted the order in September 2023 arguing that “the CFTC determined the contracts involve gaming and activity that is unlawful under state law and are contrary to the public interest.”
