jili tutorial

NY Judge Questions CFTC’s Exclusive Authority in Prediction Market Case: A Comprehensive Guide

By jili tutorial · September 17, 2026

NY Judge Questions CFTC’s Exclusive Authority in Prediction Market Case: A Comprehensive Guide

Overview

In a closely watched legal battle that could reshape the regulatory landscape for prediction markets, a federal judge in New York has expressed serious doubts about the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) ability to block state enforcement actions. The case centers on whether event contracts—such as bets on sports outcomes—are financial derivatives under federal law or gambling products subject to state regulation. This guide breaks down the key arguments, the conflicting court rulings, and the potential consequences for the industry.

Background: What Are Prediction Markets and Event Contracts?

Prediction markets allow participants to buy and sell contracts tied to the outcome of real-world events—sports games, elections, economic indicators, or even weather events. These contracts are often structured as binary options (e.g., “Will Team A win?”) and trade on platforms like Kalshi, Coinbase Financial Markets, and Gemini Titan.

Proponents argue that prediction markets provide valuable forecasting data and serve as hedging tools. Critics, including state regulators and the casino industry, contend that many of these contracts are indistinguishable from sports betting and therefore fall under state gambling laws.

The legal classification of these contracts is the crux of the dispute. If they are “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the CFTC holds exclusive jurisdiction. If they are wagers, states have the primary authority to regulate—or prohibit—them.

CFTC’s Argument: Exclusive Federal Authority Under the Commodity Exchange Act

At a September 14 hearing before U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield in the Southern District of New York, CFTC lawyer Jordan Minot argued that event contracts are swaps under the CEA. He maintained that Congress granted the CFTC exclusive oversight over such products, meaning states like New York cannot enforce their own gambling laws against federally registered platforms.

Minot warned that allowing New York to intervene would create legal uncertainty, especially as similar cases move through federal courts across the country. The CFTC sought a preliminary injunction to halt New York’s enforcement actions against several prediction market operators.

New York’s Position: Event Contracts as Unlicensed Gambling

New York Attorney General Letitia James has taken an aggressive stance, targeting Coinbase Financial Markets, Gemini Titan, and Kalshi. The state alleges that these platforms offer unlicensed gambling in violation of New York’s gambling laws. James seeks monetary penalties and injunctive relief.

New York argues that sports event contracts are functionally identical to wagers placed at licensed sportsbooks—just structured as financial instruments. The state insists that the CEA does not preempt its authority to regulate gambling within its borders.

The Judicial Split: Third Circuit vs. Ninth Circuit

The legal uncertainty stems from conflicting rulings by federal appeals courts. The Third Circuit has supported the CFTC’s view, holding that event contracts fall under the CEA and are thus subject to federal regulation. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that sports contracts offered by Kalshi can be defined as wagers under state gambling laws, effectively upholding state authority.

This split has created a patchwork of regulations. The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to resolve the dispute, but no decision on certiorari has been announced yet.

The Preliminary Injunction Hearing: Key Points from Judge Schofield

Judge’s Skepticism

Judge Schofield questioned the strength of the CFTC’s case. She pointed to the conflicting appellate rulings and asked why the court should grant an injunction when other judges had rejected similar requests. Her remarks suggested that the CFTC faces an uphill battle in proving that exclusive federal authority applies across all types of event contracts.

CFTC’s Response

CFTC attorney Minot acknowledged the legal split but argued that the agency’s position is correct and that a preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the regulated market. He emphasized that the CFTC has a statutory mandate to oversee derivatives, and that state interference undermines that mandate.

Broader Implications and Stakeholder Reactions

State Attorneys General Coalition

In July, 44 state attorneys general sent a letter to the CFTC, arguing that the CEA does not give the agency authority over sports-related event contracts. They asserted that sports betting has long been a matter of state control and objected to what they see as an overreach by federal regulators. This broad coalition signals that the fight is not just about New York—it’s a national issue.

American Gaming Association’s Stance

The American Gaming Association (AGA), the trade group for the casino industry, filed a court document opposing the CFTC’s injunction request. The AGA argues that sports prediction contracts should be subject to the same rules as licensed sportsbooks—including licensing, taxation, age limits, advertising standards, and responsible-gambling requirements.

A key data point cited by the AGA: New York generated $1.32 billion in sports-betting tax revenue in 2025. The association contends that allowing unregulated prediction markets to operate would undermine state revenue streams and consumer protections.

Impact on Prediction Market Operators

The New York case directly affects Coinbase Financial Markets, Gemini Titan, and Kalshi. If the court sides with New York, these platforms could be forced to cease offering sports-related contracts in the state or face heavy penalties. A victory for the CFTC, on the other hand, could shield federally registered prediction markets from state enforcement—potentially expanding their reach and legitimacy.

What’s Next? Possible Supreme Court Intervention

Given the circuit split, the U.S. Supreme Court is the most likely venue for a final resolution. Legal experts expect the Court to grant certiorari in one of the pending cases, which could settle whether event contracts are derivatives or gambling products once and for all.

Until then, lower courts—including Judge Schofield—must navigate the conflicting precedents. Her ruling on the preliminary injunction is pending, and it may provide a window into how the Second Circuit is likely to approach the issue.

Key Takeaways for Regulators and Market Participants

Conclusion

Judge Schofield’s doubts about the CFTC’s case highlight the deep legal uncertainty surrounding prediction markets. The clash between federal and state authority, the conflicting appellate rulings, and the involvement of powerful stakeholders like the AGA and state attorneys general make this one of the most consequential regulatory disputes in the financial derivatives space. With the Supreme Court looming, the next few months could define the future of event-based trading in the United States.