After just a few hours, U.S. election bets put on hold by appeals court ruling

Legal Compliance

Just hours after it began, legal betting on the outcome of U.S. Congressional elections has been put on hold by a federal appeals court.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order Thursday night temporarily freezing the matter until it can consider and rule on the issue. No timetable was initially given.

The court acted at about 8:30 p.m. Thursday, mere hours after a federal judge cleared the way for the only bets on American elections to be legally sanctioned by a U.S. jurisdiction.

U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb permitted New York startup company Kalshi to begin offering what amounts to bets on the outcome of November elections regarding which parties win control of the House and Senate.

The company’s markets went live soon afterwards, and Kalshi accepted an unknown amount of bets, which it called “contracts.”

The Thursday night order put a halt to any further such bets. What might happen to those already made was unclear Friday.

Neither Kalshi nor the commission immediately responded to messages seeking comment Friday.

The ruling came after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission appealed Cobb’s ruling, warning that allowing election bets, even for a short period of time, risked serious harm from people trying to manipulate the election for financial purposes.

The Thursday night order put a halt to any further such bets. What might happen to those already made was unclear Friday.

Neither Kalshi nor the commission immediately responded to messages seeking comment Friday.

The ruling came after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission appealed Cobb’s ruling, warning that allowing election bets, even for a short period of time, risked serious harm from people trying to manipulate the election for financial purposes.

Related listings

  • ‘The Mentalist’ star Simon Baker admits drinking and driving in Australia

    ‘The Mentalist’ star Simon Baker admits drinking and driving in Australia

    Legal Compliance 09/11/2024

    Australian actor and director Simon Baker, best known for his role as Patrick Jane in the CBS drama series “The Mentalist,” avoided a conviction Wednesday after pleading guilty to a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol near hi...

  • Former Rep. George Santos pleads guilty in federal fraud case

    Former Rep. George Santos pleads guilty in federal fraud case

    Legal Compliance 08/20/2024

    George Santos, the former New York congressman who spun lies into a brief political career, pleaded guilty Monday to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, acknowledging that he allowed his ambitions to cloud his judgment.Santos, 36, is likely to ...

  • Hearing in Karen Read case expected to focus on jury deliberations

    Hearing in Karen Read case expected to focus on jury deliberations

    Legal Compliance 08/09/2024

    Defense attorneys for Karen Read are expected to argue Friday that two charges in the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend be dismissed, focusing on the jury deliberations that led to a mistrial.Read is accused of ramming into John O’Ke...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.