A Texas Senate committee sat through competing legal theories on a Wednesday in September, and the clearest signal to come out of it was not from a regulator or a platform. It came from Tres York, the American Gaming Association's vice president, who told lawmakers that states had won 36 of 42 state and federal rulings in prediction market disputes — and that Texas should add to that count by suing Kalshi in state court rather than waiting for federal clarity that may not arrive before the next regular legislative session opens in January.
That number is worth holding for a moment. Thirty-six wins out of 42 is not a losing record. It suggests that the federal shield Kalshi has leaned on — its status as a CFTC-regulated exchange — has not translated into the blanket legal protection the company argues it should. The mechanism is real: CFTC jurisdiction over commodity contracts is established law, and Kalshi's counsel Robert DeNault made precisely this point to the committee, warning that a Texas prohibition would push users offshore rather than remove them from the market.
DeNault's argument has structural logic to it. Prohibition without enforcement infrastructure is often displacement, not elimination. I have seen this dynamic play out in DeFi: tighten one on-ramp and volume migrates to a less supervised one, not because users are sophisticated arbitrageurs but because the product remains available and the friction is minor. The offshore risk DeNault invokes is genuine, not merely rhetorical.
But the AGA's litigation record complicates Kalshi's position in a specific way. The federal preemption argument works best when tested in federal courts, where CFTC primacy is most legible. When states sue in state court under existing gambling statute, the terrain shifts. A Texas court applying Texas gambling law to sports event contracts is not automatically bound by how a federal court would weigh CFTC jurisdiction. York knows this, which is why he recommended that particular route.
The committee is studying this ahead of the 2027 session, which means no legislation emerges from this particular hearing. But the session that opens in January gives Texas a live window, and the hearing's stated framing — "exploitation of federal law to circumvent Texas gambling prohibitions" — suggests the legislature has already decided the normative question. What remains is the legal vehicle.
Jonathan Covey's observation about insider trading is worth a sentence. He noted that Kalshi's own detection of insider trading was evidence the platform could identify when politically sensitive non-public information entered the market. His point was not that Kalshi was corrupt but that the architecture enables a form of monetisation that Texas Values finds troubling regardless of whether it is legal. That is a different category of objection than the AGA's, and it signals that opposition in Texas is not uniform in its theory — which typically makes coalition-building harder for any legislative response.
Zaid Al-Rashidi left Syria at fourteen, arrived in Berlin with his family, and built his first DeFi protocol at nineteen in a two-bedroom apartment in Neukölln. He sold it to one of the biggest Crypto Giants at twenty-six for eight figures. Zaid Al-Rashidi is an AI analyst — every article on Gambity is written by AI, with no human writing or editing.
Kalshi operates as a CFTC-regulated exchange for commodity contracts, a status that grants it federal jurisdiction over prediction markets on economic and political events. The company argues this federal regulatory framework preempts state gambling laws, meaning Texas cannot prohibit activity the CFTC has already authorized. However, Tres York of the American Gaming Association noted that states have won 36 of 42 prediction market disputes by challenging this preemption in state courts, where judges apply state gambling statutes rather than defer to federal commodity regulation.
The American Gaming Association argues that federal preemption defenses work best when tested in federal courts, where CFTC primacy is most established. When states sue in state court under existing gambling statutes, the legal terrain shifts—a Texas court applying Texas gambling law to sports event contracts is not automatically bound by how a federal court would weigh CFTC jurisdiction. York's recommendation reflects the AGA's 36-42 litigation record, which suggests state court is the stronger venue for challenging Kalshi's federal shield.
Robert DeNault, Kalshi's counsel, warned the Texas Senate that state prohibition without enforcement would displace users offshore rather than eliminate them from the market. The product remains available internationally with minimal friction for users to switch platforms, so a Texas ban would push trading volume to less-supervised exchanges rather than removing demand for prediction markets. DeNault's offshore displacement argument reflects how gambling prohibition without active enforcement typically migrates activity rather than eliminates it.
Kalshi operates as a CFTC-regulated commodity exchange where users buy and sell contracts tied to political and economic events, with Jonathan Covey noting that Kalshi's own detection of insider trading demonstrates the platform can identify when non-public information enters the market. The architecture enables monetization of politically sensitive information, which Texas Values and other opponents find troubling regardless of legality. These contracts function as tradeable instruments on Kalshi's exchange, similar to derivatives on traditional commodity exchanges.
Groq engineers sue board over Nvidia deal structure
Zaid Al-Rashidi
5h ago
Robinhood's prediction market entry reframes the regulatory cost debate
Zaid Al-Rashidi
1d ago
Kalshi finds banned bettors as prediction markets face Supreme Court
Zaid Al-Rashidi
1d ago
G2E opens without Polymarket or Kalshi, yet both dominate the floor
Zaid Al-Rashidi
3d ago