The opposition, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, targets a procedural maneuver Kalshi set out in a September 25 letter. Kalshi's argument, as reported by CDC Gaming, is that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has signaled its intention to revise 17 CFR 40.11 — the federal regulation governing event contracts — and that an ongoing rulemaking process should give the court reason to hold off before reconsidering an earlier ruling. Nevada's position is that it should not.
What 17 CFR 40.11 actually says — and whether the CFTC's forthcoming revision would preempt state-level enforcement of gambling statutes — remains the substantive question neither the Ninth Circuit nor the CFTC has yet resolved. Nevada's opposition keeps that question alive on the court's schedule rather than the commission's.
Marcus Azzopardi