Judge rejects Kalshi attempt to override New York state gambling laws
Judge rejects Kalshi attempt to override New York state gambling laws
法官驳回 Kalshi 试图推翻纽约州博彩法的请求
Kalshi lost an attempt to override New York’s state gambling laws yesterday, with a federal judge rejecting the prediction market operator’s request to prevent enforcement of the rules. Kalshi is appealing the decision to a higher court. This is one of numerous cases in which judges must decide whether state laws are preempted by federal regulation of prediction markets. Kalshi 昨日试图推翻纽约州博彩法的尝试宣告失败，一位联邦法官驳回了该预测市场运营商阻止州政府执行相关法规的请求。Kalshi 目前正向上级法院提起上诉。这是众多案件中的一起，法官们必须在这些案件中裁定州法律是否会被联邦对预测市场的监管所取代（优先于州法）。
New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James issued a joint statement on the ruling today. “New York’s gambling laws are designed to protect consumers,” they said. “Kalshi tried to ignore them. Yesterday, they lost in court. We will continue to hold all gambling platforms accountable to the law—and that includes prediction markets.” 纽约州州长凯西·霍楚尔（Kathy Hochul）和总检察长莱蒂西亚·詹姆斯（Letitia James）今日就该裁决发表了联合声明。她们表示：“纽约州的博彩法旨在保护消费者。Kalshi 试图无视这些法律。昨天，他们在法庭上败诉了。我们将继续要求所有博彩平台遵守法律，这其中也包括预测市场。”
The ruling against Kalshi was issued by US District Judge Analisa Torres in the Southern District of New York. Shortly after the ruling, Kalshi filed a notice stating that it is appealing the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. 针对 Kalshi 的裁决由美国纽约南区联邦地区法院法官安娜丽莎·托雷斯（Analisa Torres）作出。裁决作出后不久，Kalshi 提交了一份通知，声明将向美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院提起上诉。
Kalshi is registered with the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as a designated contract market (DCM). Torres found that this does not exempt Kalshi from state gambling laws. “Congress did not intend to preempt all state actions that may relate to DCMs,” Torres wrote. “Instead, the CEA [Commodity Exchange Act] leaves room for states to regulate tangential issues that may arise from trading swaps and other financial products on DCMs.” Kalshi 在美国商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）注册为指定合约市场（DCM）。托雷斯法官认为，这并不能使 Kalshi 免受州博彩法的约束。托雷斯写道：“国会无意取代所有与 DCM 相关的州政府行动。相反，《商品交易法》（CEA）为各州留出了空间，以监管在 DCM 上交易掉期合约及其他金融产品时可能产生的附带问题。”
Judge: US inaction doesn’t block states
法官：联邦政府的不作为并不阻碍各州行使权力
While the CFTC has not exercised its own authority to restrict Kalshi’s sports-event contracts, Torres wrote that the federal agency’s inaction does not block New York gambling laws. New York laws regulating gaming “complement rather than conflict with federal law,” she wrote. 尽管 CFTC 尚未行使其限制 Kalshi 体育赛事合约的权力，但托雷斯写道，该联邦机构的不作为并不会阻碍纽约州博彩法的实施。她写道，纽约州监管博彩的法律“是对联邦法律的补充，而非冲突”。
The CFTC has taken a more lenient approach to prediction markets than states and sued states to preempt laws that prohibit or regulate the markets. Kalshi and its rival Polymarket both have Donald Trump Jr. as an advisor, and a Trump Jr.-backed venture capital firm invested in Polymarket. 与各州相比，CFTC 对预测市场采取了更为宽松的态度，并曾起诉各州，试图推翻那些禁止或监管此类市场的法律。Kalshi 及其竞争对手 Polymarket 均聘请小唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump Jr.）担任顾问，且一家由小特朗普支持的风险投资公司投资了 Polymarket。
The Kalshi lawsuit against New York began in October when it sued over a State Gaming Commission order that told it to stop offering sports-related event contracts. Kalshi could face civil penalties and fines for offering the contracts in New York, and called the rules an “intrusion into the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate derivatives trading on exchanges overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.” Kalshi 针对纽约州的诉讼始于去年 10 月，当时它起诉了州博彩委员会的一项命令，该命令要求其停止提供与体育相关的赛事合约。Kalshi 因在纽约提供此类合约可能面临民事处罚和罚款，它称这些规定是“对联邦政府在 CFTC 监管的交易所内监管衍生品交易的专属权力的侵犯”。
New York officials say residents would be harmed if Kalshi offers unsupervised sports gambling, particularly to people between the ages of 18 and 24. State law also prohibits gambling on sports involving any New York-based college team. 纽约州官员表示，如果 Kalshi 提供不受监管的体育博彩，居民将受到伤害，尤其是 18 至 24 岁的人群。州法律还禁止对涉及任何纽约州大学球队的体育赛事进行博彩。
Yesterday’s District Court ruling didn’t end Kalshi’s lawsuit against New York, but it allows the state to continue enforcing its laws while litigation continues. Torres rejected Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction against State Gaming Commission officials. 昨日的地方法院裁决并未结束 Kalshi 对纽约州的诉讼，但它允许该州在诉讼期间继续执行其法律。托雷斯法官驳回了 Kalshi 对州博彩委员会官员提出的初步禁令请求。
NY ordered Kalshi to stop
纽约州下令 Kalshi 停止运营
Kalshi began listing sports-event contracts in January 2025, letting users bet on events like the NCAA basketball and US Open golf tournaments. In October 2025, the Gaming Commission ordered 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.” Kalshi 于 2025 年 1 月开始上线体育赛事合约，允许用户对 NCAA 篮球赛和美国高尔夫公开赛等赛事进行投注。2025 年 10 月，博彩委员会下令 Kalshi “停止在纽约州非法运营、广告宣传、推广、管理或以其他方式提供与任何体育赛事相关的无证移动体育博彩平台”。
Kalshi says its sports-event contracts are swaps and thus regulated under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over various types of derivatives. But these contracts let users wager money on the outcomes of sporting events, and states have long exercised regulatory power over gambling and lotteries. Kalshi 声称其体育赛事合约属于掉期合约，因此受 CFTC 对各类衍生品专属管辖权的监管。但这些合约允许用户对体育赛事结果进行金钱投注，而各州长期以来一直对博彩和彩票行使监管权。
To get an injunction that would let it offer sports bets, Kalshi must show that its lawsuit is likely to succeed on the merits, that it will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, and that an injunction is in the public interest. For the purposes of deciding Kalshi’s motion for an injunction, Torres did not decide whether the contracts are swaps under federal law. 为了获得允许其提供体育博彩的禁令，Kalshi 必须证明其诉讼在法律依据上很可能会胜诉，如果不发布禁令它将遭受不可弥补的损害，且发布禁令符合公共利益。在裁定 Kalshi 的禁令动议时，托雷斯法官并未判定这些合约在联邦法律下是否属于掉期合约。
Torres wrote that courts apply a presumption against preemption in areas where states historically exercised their police powers, and gambling regulation has historically been left to states. 托雷斯写道，在各州历史上行使过警察权（治安权）的领域，法院通常会适用“反对取代（presumption against preemption）”的推定原则，而博彩监管在历史上一直由各州负责。
“The presumption against preemption, therefore, applies to this case, and the Court must analyze whether Kalshi has demonstrated that, in enacting the CEA, it was the ‘clear and manifest purpose of Congress’ to preempt New York’s authority to regulate gambling where a DCM, like Kalshi, offers sports-event contracts on its platform,” Torres wrote. 托雷斯写道：“因此，‘反对取代’的推定原则适用于本案。法院必须分析 Kalshi 是否证明了国会在制定《商品交易法》（CEA）时，其‘明确且显而易见的意图’就是为了取代纽约州监管博彩的权力，即当像 Kalshi 这样的 DCM 在其平台上提供体育赛事合约时。”
No clear intent from Congress to preempt
国会并无明确的取代意图
Torres does not see any clear intent from Congress to preempt New York gambling laws. While the CEA gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over transactions involving swaps on a DCM, it says this power does not “supersede or limit the jurisdiction at any time conferred on… other regulatory authorities under the laws of the United States or of any State.” 托雷斯认为，国会没有任何明确意图要取代纽约州的博彩法。虽然《商品交易法》（CEA）赋予了 CFTC 对 DCM 上涉及掉期交易的专属管辖权，但该法也指出，此权力并不“取代或限制美国法律或任何州法律在任何时候授予其他监管机构的管辖权”。
“This provision evinces Congress’ intent to leave room for states to regulate certain activities that may have otherwise been covered by the CEA… Moreover, given that the power to regulate gambling is a traditional police power exercised by New York, the Court also declines to interpret the CEA’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction as leaving ‘no room for supplementary state legislation,’” Torres wrote. 托雷斯写道：“这一条款表明了国会的意图，即为各州留出空间，以监管某些本可能被 CEA 涵盖的活动……此外，鉴于监管博彩的权力是纽约州传统上行使的警察权，法院也拒绝将 CEA 授予的专属管辖权解释为‘不留任何补充性州立法的空间’。”
Congress specifically prohibited states from applying gambling laws to swaps in certain limited circumstances, and similarly prohibited state regulation of swaps in insurance contracts and other contexts, Torres wrote. These provisions demonstrate “Congress’ intended scope of preemption” and provide evidence that “Congress did not intend to regulate so broadly as to exclude all state gambling laws from regulating.” 托雷斯写道，国会明确禁止各州在某些有限情况下将博彩法应用于掉期合约，并同样禁止州政府在保险合同和其他背景下对掉期合约进行监管。这些条款证明了“国会预期的取代范围”，并提供了证据表明“国会无意进行如此广泛的监管，以至于排除所有州博彩法的监管权”。