A US appeals court sided with Kalshi, ruling that CFTC‑regulated event contracts fall under federal law, not New Jersey gambling rules, reshaping prediction market oversight.
Summary
- U.S. appeals court says New Jersey cannot regulate Kalshi’s CFTC‑supervised sports contracts.
- Ruling strengthens federal preemption and could reshape how prediction markets compete with sportsbooks.
- Decision lands amid a broader legal war between states, Kalshi, and the CFTC over who controls event‑based trading.
A federal appeals court has ruled that New Jersey cannot bar Kalshi from offering sports‑related event contracts in the state, declaring that the Commodity Exchange Act and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) hold exclusive authority over those markets. In a 2‑1 decision, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia held that trading on Kalshi’s designated contract market is governed by federal derivatives law, not state gambling codes, effectively blocking New Jersey regulators from enforcing their cease‑and‑desist order. The ruling cements a major legal win for Kalshi, which has argued for years that its contracts are swaps and hedging tools rather than traditional sports bets.
The case stems from a series of cease‑and‑desist letters sent by New Jersey in 2025, accusing Kalshi’s sports markets of violating the state’s Sports Wagering Act and constitution and threatening fines of up to $100,000 per violation. Kalshi sued in federal court, claiming that, as a CFTC‑regulated designated contract market, its event contracts sit squarely within federal jurisdiction and are “a type of ‘swap’ regulated by the Commodity Exchange Act.” A New Jersey federal judge had already granted Kalshi a preliminary injunction in 2025, writing that he was “persuaded that Kalshi’s sports‑related event contracts fall within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction,” a view the 3rd Circuit has now largely endorsed.
The appeals court’s opinion aligns with Kalshi’s broader strategy as it fights regulators in multiple states, including Nevada, Maryland, and Tennessee, over whether its markets are illegal gambling or federally protected derivatives. In Tennessee, for example, U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger recently granted a temporary restraining order halting enforcement of that state’s cease‑and‑desist order, finding that Kalshi is likely to succeed on its argument that federal law preempts state gambling statutes. More broadly, the CFTC and U.S. Department of Justice have escalated the fight by suing Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois over what CFTC Chair Mike Selig called “aggressive and overzealous attempts to overstep the CFTC” in their efforts to police prediction markets.
Responding to the New Jersey decision, Kalshi co‑founder and CEO Tarek Mansour called the appeals ruling a “significant victory” and argued that regulated prediction markets “offer greater transparency and fairness” than opaque traditional betting channels. In earlier commentary, Mansour has said that prediction markets can outperform conventional financial instruments by delivering “clean, crowd‑driven probabilities instead of noisy headlines,” framing platforms like Kalshi as information infrastructure rather than casinos. The decision also lands as rivals such as Polymarket secure their own CFTC approvals, with the agency “effectively welcoming” Polymarket into the club of fully regulated U.S. exchanges and binding it to full designated‑contract‑market‑style surveillance and self‑regulatory duties.
Despite the 3rd Circuit win, Kalshi’s regulatory risk is far from over. A Nevada judge recently extended a ban preventing the company from offering event‑based contracts in that state, underscoring the fragmented legal landscape facing prediction platforms. At the federal level, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators has floated legislation to ban sports‑bet and casino‑style contracts on CFTC‑regulated prediction markets altogether, raising the prospect that Congress, not just courts, will decide how far companies like Kalshi can push into sports.
