In a recent court submission, Kalshi argued that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) lacks the authority to ban election betting, emphasizing that only Congress has the power to do so. This assertion is part of Kalshi's ongoing legal dispute with the CFTC, which began when the regulator attempted to block the company's event contracts related to election outcomes last September. The CFTC claimed that these contracts constituted 'gaming' and were against the public interest.
Kalshi countered by filing a lawsuit against the CFTC, alleging that the agency had overstepped its authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. In its latest filing, Kalshi criticized the CFTC for creating an arbitrary definition of 'gaming' that specifically targets bets on elections, but not other contingent events, describing this move as 'outcome-driven gerrymandering with no basis in statute.' The District Court previously ruled in favor of Kalshi, with Judge Jia Cobb granting summary judgment and rejecting the CFTC's interpretation of the Commodity Exchange Act as overly broad.
After the CFTC appealed the decision, Kalshi reiterated its arguments, emphasizing that the regulator's decision to prohibit its contracts exceeded its statutory authority and that only Congress can authorize the CFTC to ban election prediction markets.