Sep 30, 2026 · 44 min
Courts weigh postpartum psychosis claims and prediction-market power
Clancy Trial Twist & Kalshi Loses Again
The episode connects a contested murder defense, a reopened campus investigation, and a major federalism fight over who regulates prediction markets.
- 1Lindsay Clancy’s defense advances competing theories while weighing a plea, retrial, and scrutiny of a holdout juror.
- 2New York’s Cornell investigation highlights the different burdens governing university Title IX proceedings and criminal cases.
- 3The Sixth Circuit let Ohio and Tennessee challenge Kalshi contracts, rejecting its argument that federal law preempts state gambling rules.
Don't miss
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling lets Ohio and Tennessee challenge Kalshi’s sports contracts under state gambling laws despite federal preemption claims.
The brief
The Lindsay Clancy case presents an unusual defense dilemma: argue she did not commit the killings, or that postpartum psychosis made her not criminally responsible.
Dave Aronberg explains why the effort to investigate a holdout juror faces a demanding legal standard, while prosecutors weigh a treatment-focused plea against retrial.
The Cornell matter separates internal Title IX proceedings from criminal enforcement, as Kathy Hochul calls for renewed scrutiny of the university’s handling of a reported gang rape.
James Park breaks down the Sixth Circuit’s Kalshi ruling, which allows Ohio and Tennessee to pursue state gambling claims despite federal commodities-law arguments.
The broader dispute asks whether sports prediction contracts are federally regulated swaps or gambling products, with state licensing, taxes, and Supreme Court review in view.