SCOTUS | Crypto

According to the league, Kalshi and other prediction markets “threaten game integrity” because many event contracts are “highly susceptible to manipulation.” The National Football League (NFL) largely sided with New Jersey officials in their petition for the Supreme Court to consider a case on sports bets through prediction markets platforms  In an amicus brief filed with the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, the NFL called on the justices to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari from New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and gaming enforcement interim director Mary Jo Flaherty. The filing came in response to New Jersey officials petitioning the court to consider its case against Kalshi, potentially resolving whether the jurisdiction of prediction market companies falls under state authorities or federal agencies. The football league supported many of the New Jersey authorities’ arguments, including that the case addresses potential issues with labeling sporting-event contracts on prediction market ...

The case between New Jersey authorities and a prediction market company, if accepted by the Supreme Court, could result in clarity for state and federal officials over sports bets. A group of US state lawmakers has filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court, urging justices to weigh in on a case between prediction markets platform Kalshi and gaming authorities.  On Tuesday, the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States (NCLGS) filed in the US Supreme Court, supporting New Jersey’s Attorney General and gaming authorities’ petition for a writ of certiorari. The petition, filed on Sept. 2, asked the nation’s highest court to consider New Jersey’s case against Kalshi, potentially resolving whether state authorities or federal agencies have jurisdiction over prediction market companies. In its amicus curiae filing supporting New Jersey’s position, the NCLGS argued that a ruling favoring Kalshi would “[render] states powerless” to regulate sports betting on prediction markets, causing “substantial har...

The United States Supreme Court ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump could not use national emergency powers to levy tariffs during peacetime. US President Donald Trump announced a 10% global tariff on Friday following the Supreme Court's ruling striking down his authority to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Trump was critical of the Supreme Court’s decision, calling the decision “ridiculous” at Friday’s press conference, and said that he will levy the tariffs under different legal methods, including the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974. Trump said: Trump’s tariffs have repeatedly caused severe downturns in markets considered high risk, including crypto and equities, as the threat of tariffs fuels uncertainty and shakes investor confidence. Read more

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that tariffs could help pay down the $38 trillion, and growing, US national debt. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a ruling on Friday striking down most of US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, with six of the nine Supreme Court justices ruling that the Executive Branch lacks authority to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” Friday’s ruling said, adding that the president has “no inherent authority” to impose tariffs during peacetime using the statutes in the IEEPA. The ruling read: Trump claimed that the purported inflow of drugs from Canada, China and Mexico, as well as the “hollowing out” of the US industrial base, constituted a national emergency under IEEPA that justified the tariffs, which the court rejected. In a press briefing following the decision, Trump lashed out at the justices who voted to strike down the tariffs and vowed to get th...