This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled in favor of the predictions market Kalshi, allowing the commodities exchange to offer event contracts based on the outcome of U.S. congressional elections. Circuit Judge Millett’s opinion supports the legality of the contracts, dismissing claims of gaming or election gambling.
DC Circuit Court Rules Kalshi’s US Election Bets Legal
This article was published more than a year ago. Some information may no longer be current.
WRITTEN BY
SHARE
Court Clears Kalshi to Offer U.S. Election Bets, Rejects Gambling Claims
In a decision issued on Oct. 2, 2024, Circuit Judge Millett denied the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) motion to block Kalshi from listing its Congressional Control Contracts. Kalshi’s contracts allow individuals to place monetary bets on which political party will control the U.S. House or Senate.
The court ruled that these contracts do not constitute gambling, as defined by either federal or state law. The judge highlighted that while the CFTC argued the contracts could undermine election integrity, they failed to provide evidence of immediate harm or public interest violation.
“The commission has failed at this time to demonstrate that it or the public will be irreparably injured absent a stay,” the opinion states.
The CFTC had previously prohibited Kalshi from offering these contracts, citing concerns that they amounted to gaming or betting on elections, a practice outlawed in many states. However, the court found that the Congressional Control Contracts differ significantly from conventional betting, noting that they are regulated event contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act.
The court referenced the fact that other platforms, such as PredictIt, have operated similar markets without intervention from the CFTC. Judge Millett’s opinion further emphasized that the contracts are designed for U.S. citizens only, dismissing concerns about foreign interference in the U.S. election process.
Judge Millett concluded that the CFTC’s case lacked the necessary demonstration of irreparable harm to warrant a stay, allowing Kalshi to proceed with the contracts. The court also acknowledged the importance of maintaining election integrity but ruled that fears surrounding market manipulation were speculative. The CFTC retains the right to appeal, and the court’s decision leaves room for future challenges if substantial evidence of harm to elections emerge.
What do you think about the court siding with Kalshi? Share your thoughts and opinions about this subject in the comments section below.
