9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

Lawyer here - As i explained last time we had a variant of this thread (see comment history if you are interested), this is a very complicated area that people try to make very simple.

It doesn't have to be complicated, mind you, but right now the way the law is written is basically:

1. Transmitting sports betting info between states is a federal crime unless it's legal in both states (18 U.S.C. § 1084(a))

2. The CEA regulations ban contracts that are illegal under state law (17 CFR 40.11)

3. Other forms of gambling/betting/contracts that are not sports are generally a-ok.

4. This is not a case of first impression, it's just getting relitigated because Kalshi doesn't want to follow the actual law. This has actually been pretty settled law for a long time, with new flareups maybe once a decade. Kalshi is just hoping to be treated like Uber was.

The third circuit's decision is pretty clearly "out there" in terms of existing caselaw.

However, this will end up at SCOTUS, and everything until then just doesn't matter. That will be a coin flip even though it shouldn't be

> “Congress did not take a wrecking ball to all sports gambling regulations built up over decades by federal, state, and tribal governments when it amended the (Commodity Exchange Act),” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote in the unanimous decision.

Incredible that it's taken this long to arrive at the obvious.

> As an example, the court explained that whether the Super Bowl happens is an “occurrence,” but who wins it is not.

This level of parsing looks like judicial legislation to me. Isn't it one occurrence if the Rams win and another if the Packers win? Better that they declare the law void for vagueness and give the legislature another shot at it. Guessing what the words mean, when it is not at all clear to professionals let alone to the average citizen does not give proper notification of what the law is to the people subject to it.

as an argument for sports betting as a market, i remember when the wrong team won the world series, and hadnt setup their correct merch and so on for online sales, and it was a disaster trying to get all the right stuff together to minimize fraud and abuse.

if an online sales provider could hedge against the risk of that win, the gamble would help pay for all the chaos as a result

The appeals court found sports betting isn’t shielded by the federal law used to block Kris Mayes’ prosecution.

I wonder what this means for cases under loss recovery acts in states that have them.

Rem when mafia bookies running sports betting was a subplot on The Soprano's? It wasn't that long ago.

[flagged]

[dead]