Hacker News

points by bwestergard 5 days ago | 0 comments

"What they are doing is quite obviously legal right now. Federal law trumps state law and the feds have an opinion..."

Federal law does not categorically trump state law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption

Whether pre-emption applies in this case depends on whether the courts accept Kalshi/Polymarket's claim that they operate a futures trading platform, not a gambling platform. If and only if that claim is accepted is there a pre-emption argument, and only then would the opinion of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission be relevant.

[–] stickfigure 5 days ago

And while that is winding through the legal system, courts have decided that Kalshi/Polymarket can continue to operate. That might change in the future, but it is the present reality.

As long as the business is legal to operate, there is no justification for criminally prosecuting the people engaged in that business.

[–] bwestergard 5 days ago

That courts have not ordered them to stop operating does not mean that what they are doing is legal. They could face additional counts for their behavior while the case is pending.

"As long as the business is legal to operate, there is no justification for criminally prosecuting the people engaged in that business."

You are begging the question: assuming that the business is legal to operate in the state of Utah. You keep presenting Kalshi's arguments as though they enjoy some presumption of legality prior to a ruling.

[–] lesuorac 5 days ago

It's a criminal case, don't they have a presumption of legality then?

[–] Dylan16807 5 days ago

Presumption of legality pending trial is rather different from "quite obviously legal[emphasis in original]" or "definitionally legal".

"until they work their way through the courts, it's "legal"" is a much better phrasing and if the comment had stuck to that it probably wouldn't be downvoted.