In a recent legal development, a New York-based company, Kalshi, has faced another setback in its ongoing struggle with New York State regulators. Kalshi, a company engaged in sports event contract disputes, sued the state's Gaming Commission in October 2025, claiming its activities infringe on state law. The company argues that federal law grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission exclusive jurisdiction over its exchange and claims state enforcement efforts are preempted. However, Judge Torres firmly stated that a recent CFTC proposal did not change her perspective, stating that the court must exercise independent judgment when interpreting statutory provisions. Furthermore, Kalshi offered no evidence to support a different conclusion. The judge also declined to reassess the findings that pausing enforcement could harm New York and the public, instructing the clerk to terminate the motion. Kalshi's legal fight is part of a larger regulatory battle that involves other jurisdictions and regulatory bodies.
As the legal dispute progresses, Kalshi continues to face challenges from various state regulators.
Kalshi, a New York-based company, has been embroiled in a dispute with the New York State Gaming Commission.
In October 2025, the company sued the commission, citing violations of state law.
The firm asserts that federal law grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission exclusive jurisdiction over its operations and that state enforcement efforts are preempted.
However, Judge Torres stated that the recent proposal from the CFTC did not alter her perspective, emphasizing that the court must independently evaluate legal provisions.
Kalshi offered no evidence to support a different outcome.
The judge declined to reevaluate the findings that halting enforcement could harm New York and the public, instructing the clerk to conclude the motion.
The court battle is part of a broader regulatory battle involving state agencies and regulatory bodies.
As the case progresses, Kalshi continues to face challenges from various state regulators.
Kalshi is a New York-based firm that has become entangled in a dispute with the New York State Gaming Commission.
In October 2025, the company sued the commission, citing violations of state law.
According to Kalshi, federal law grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission exclusive jurisdiction over its operations and that state enforcement efforts are preempted.
Nonetheless, Judge Torres maintained that the recent proposal from the CFTC did not alter her viewpoint, stressing that the court must independently evaluate legal provisions.
Kalshi presented no evidence to back a different outcome.
The judge declined to reevaluate the findings that halting enforcement could harm New York and the public, instructing the clerk to conclude the motion.
The ongoing dispute is part of a broader regulatory battle involving state agencies and regulatory bodies.
As the case progresses, Kalshi continues to face challenges from various state regulators.
Kalshi is a New York-based company that has become embroiled in a dispute with the New York State Gaming Commission.
In October 2025, the Kalshi sued the commission, stating violations of state laws.
The company asserts that federal law grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission exclusive jurisdiction over its operations and that state enforcement efforts are preempted.
Nonetheless, Judge Torres maintained that the recent proposal from the CFTC did not alter its viewpoint, highlighting that the court must independently evaluate legal provisions.
Kalshi presented no evidence to support a different outcome.
The judge declined to reconsider the findings that halting enforcement could harm New York and the general public, instructing the clerk to conclude the motion.
The ongoing dispute is part of a broader regulatory battle involving state agencies and regulatory bodies.
As the case progresses, Kalshi continues to face challenges from various state regulators.
Kalshi is a New York-based company that has become embroiled in a dispute with the New York State Gaming Commission.
In October 2025, Kalshi sued the commission, arguing violations of state laws.
The company maintains that federal law grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission exclusive jurisdiction over its operations and that state enforcement efforts are preempted.
However, Judge Torres maintained that the recent proposal from the CFTC did not alter its viewpoint, emphasizing that the court must independently evaluate legal provisions.
Kalshi presented no evidence to support a different outcome.
The judge declined to reconsider the findings that terminating enforcement could harm New York and the general public, instructing the clerk to conclude the motion.
The ongoing dispute is part of a broader regulatory battle involving state agencies and regulatory bodies.
As the case progresses, Kalshi continues to face challenges from various state regulators.
Kalshi is a New York-based firm that has become embroiled in a dispute with the New York State Gaming Commission.
In October 2025, Kalshi sued the commission, claiming violations of state laws.
The company maintains that federal law grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission exclusive jurisdiction over its operations and that state enforcement efforts are preempted.
However, Judge Torres maintained that the recent proposal from the CFTC did not alter its viewpoint, emphasizing that the court must independently evaluate legal provisions.
Kalshi presented no evidence to support a different outcome.
The judge declined to reconsider the findings that terminating enforcement could harm New York and the general public, instructing the clerk to conclude the motion.
The ongoing dispute is part of a broader regulatory battle involving state agencies and regulatory bodies.
In October 2025, Kalshi sued the commission, asserting violations of state laws.
The company argues that federal law grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission exclusive jurisdiction over its operations and that state enforcement efforts are preempted.
However, Judge Torres maintained that the recent proposal from the CFTC did not alter its viewpoint, emphasizing that the court must independently evaluate legal provisions.
Kalshi offered no evidence to support a different outcome.
The judge declined to reconsider the findings that terminating enforcement could harm New York and the general public, instructing the clerk to conclude the motion.
The ongoing dispute is part of a broader regulatory battle involving state agencies and regulatory bodies.
In October 2026, Kalshi sued the commission, asserting violations of state laws.
The company claims that federal law grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission exclusive jurisdiction over its operations and that state enforcement efforts are preempted.
However, Judge Torres maintained that the recent proposal from the CFTC did not alter its viewpoint, stressing that the court must independently evaluate legal provisions.
Kalshi presented no evidence to support a different outcome.
The judge declined to reconsider the findings that terminating enforcement could harm New York and the general public, instructing the clerk to conclude the motion.
The ongoing dispute is part of a broader regulatory battle involving state agencies and regulatory bodies.
In October 2026, Kalshi sued the commission, asserting violations of state laws.
The company maintains that federal law grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission exclusive jurisdiction over its operations and that state enforcement efforts are preempted.
However, Judge Torres maintained that the recent proposal from the CFTC did not alter its viewpoint, emphasizing that the court must independently evaluate legal provisions.
Kalshi presented no evidence to support a different outcome.
The judge declined to reconsider the findings that terminating enforcement could harm New York and the general public, instructing the clerk to conclude the motion.
The ongoing dispute is part of a broader regulatory battle involving state agencies and regulatory bodies.
In October 2026, Kalshi sued the commission, asserting violations of state laws.
The company asserts that federal law grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission exclusive jurisdiction over its operations and that state enforcement efforts are preempt
