Kalshi has lost its latest attempt to stop New York regulators from enforcing state gaming laws while the company appeals an earlier court setback. In an order issued on Monday (July 27), U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres refused Kalshi’s request for an emergency injunction pending appeal and also denied its alternative request for short-term administrative relief. That means the court’s earlier decision refusing a preliminary injunction against officials from the New York State Gaming Commission remains in place as the appeal continues.
Judge Torres said the company had not cleared the higher legal hurdle required for emergency relief after a preliminary injunction has already been denied. Citing Second Circuit precedent, she wrote that a party seeking such relief “must show that they have a ‘strong’ likelihood of success on the merits”—a requirement that is “more” demanding than the standard for a preliminary injunction.
The judge said the company was effectively asking the court to reconsider conclusions it had already reached. “Kalshi asks the Court to reverse itself,” the order said. It added that “the fact that a court previously found that a preliminary injunction was not warranted should carry significant weight, so the circumstances must be of unusual magnitude to justify a district court granting an injunction pending appeal after denying a preliminary injunction.”
Judge Torres concluded that Kalshi had not identified circumstances meeting that demanding standard. The company argued it faced what it described as a “Hobson’s Choice” between violating New York law and risking substantial liability or violating a Commodity Futures Trading Commission order and jeopardising its federal registration. The court said it had already addressed that claim and remained unconvinced.
The order noted that the court had previously found “Kalshi has not presented any evidence that the possibility of the CFTC revocation of its designation as a [designated contract market] is more than mere speculation.” It also reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that Kalshi’s alleged injuries were “largely monetary” and stemmed from “the ordinary burdens and costs complying with government regulation [that] are typically insufficient to constitute irreparable harm.”
The judge also rejected the company’s renewed argument that it was likely to succeed on appeal, writing that Kalshi “largely repackages its briefing on the preliminary injunction motion” and relies on the possibility that the Second Circuit “may disagree with the Court’s interpretation” of federal law. She concluded that “[t]he sheer possibility of a reversal—a possibility that exists in every appeal—is insufficient for the Court to find an injunction [] or administrative stay is necessary.”
Separately, New York has filed its opposition to Kalshi’s emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal in the Second Circuit, urging the court to follow the Sixth Circuit’s recent denial of similar relief to Kalshi, with a decision expected in the coming days.
New York Kalshi dispute fits wider regulatory battle
The latest ruling follows Kalshi’s legal campaign against state regulators. In October 2025, the company sued the New York State Gaming Commission after receiving a cease-and-desist letter alleging its sports event contracts violated state law.
Kalshi argues that federal law gives the CFTC exclusive authority over its exchange and says state enforcement is preempted.
Judge Torres, however, again said a recent CFTC proposed rulemaking did not change her view, explaining that the court “must exercise independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions” and that Kalshi had offered “no new authority” supporting a different conclusion. She also declined to revisit findings that pausing enforcement could harm New York and the public before directing the clerk to terminate the motion.
Featured image: Kalshi / Canva
