jili tutorial

The Supreme Court and Prediction Markets: A Comprehensive Guide to the Legal Battle Over Sports Event Contracts

By jili tutorial · October 1, 2026

The Supreme Court and Prediction Markets: A Comprehensive Guide to the Legal Battle Over Sports Event Contracts

Introduction: A Regulatory Standoff Reaches the Highest Court

The U.S. Supreme Court may soon be asked to resolve a growing legal conflict over prediction markets—platforms that allow users to trade contracts based on the outcome of sports events. With conflicting rulings from lower courts and new petitions for review, justices must decide whether these contracts fall under federal financial regulation or state gambling laws. While it is not certain that the Court will accept the case, a definitive ruling is becoming increasingly necessary as the industry expands and states clash with federal authorities.

This guide explains the background, key legal questions, conflicting court decisions, and what is at stake for prediction market operators, regulators, and the broader public.

Background: What Are Prediction Markets and Event Contracts?

Prediction markets allow participants to buy and sell contracts whose value depends on the occurrence of a future event—for example, which team will win the Super Bowl or whether a player will score a certain number of points. These contracts resemble financial derivatives, such as futures or options, but they are often criticized as a form of sports betting.

Key Players in the Current Dispute

All three have faced pushback from state regulators who argue that these products constitute illegal sports wagering under state law.

The legal dispute centers on who has the power to regulate these offerings.

Prediction market operators argue that their contracts are financial derivatives and therefore fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a federal agency. They point to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), which grants the CFTC authority over derivatives trading.

State regulators and attorneys general counter that contracts based on sporting events are essentially a form of sports wagering. They assert that state gambling laws—often enacted under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) repealed in 2018 but still leaving room for state control—should apply. States like New Jersey and Nevada have taken legal action to restrict or ban these contracts.

Conflicting Lower Court Rulings: A Split That Demands Resolution

Lower courts have reached opposite conclusions, creating a legal patchwork that makes compliance difficult for operators.

The Third Circuit: Favoring Federal Oversight

In April 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in favor of Kalshi in its fight against New Jersey. The court concluded that federal law likely blocks the state from applying its regulations to Kalshi’s sports contracts. This decision reinforced the idea that event contracts are derivatives under the CFTC’s purview.

The Ninth Circuit: Upholding State Control

Just a few months later, in August 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the opposite way. It allowed Nevada to enforce its gaming laws on sports event contracts offered by Kalshi, Robinhood, and Crypto.com. The court held that states retain their traditional authority to regulate gambling, even when contracts are structured as derivatives.

These conflicting rulings mean that the legality of prediction markets currently depends on where the user is located—a situation that courts and regulators find unsustainable.

Key Stakeholders and Their Positions

The National Council of Legislators from Gaming States (NCLGS)

The NCLGS, a group representing state lawmakers involved in gaming regulation, has filed an amicus brief supporting New Jersey’s petition for Supreme Court review. The group argues that states should maintain control over gambling to protect public interests. It warns that a ruling blocking states from regulating sports event contracts could have unforeseen consequences on the broader market, including enabling unregulated gambling operations.

The CFTC and the Federal Government

The CFTC has so far sided firmly with prediction market operators, even taking legal action against states that attempt to restrict these platforms. The agency views event contracts as innovative financial products that provide hedging and price discovery opportunities. In a further twist, the Trump administration has also supported this federal approach, complicating the dispute for states seeking to exercise their authority.

The New Trump Factor

The incoming administration’s endorsement of federal oversight adds political weight to the operators’ argument, but it also raises questions about the limits of federal power when states’ rights are at stake.

Why a Supreme Court Decision Is Sorely Needed

The National Council of Legislators from Gaming States has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to step in. The situation has created a dangerous regulatory tangle: federal and state systems are now intertwined in a way that leaves both operators and consumers uncertain. Without a clear ruling, prediction markets could face a fragmented legal landscape, with some states allowing them, others banning them, and the CFTC enforcing its own rules.

The Supreme Court’s new term begins next week, and justices will decide which cases to take up. Disputes around Kalshi, Robinhood, and Crypto.com are likely candidates because they present a clean legal question: Where does the line fall between federally regulated derivatives and the states’ long-established authority to regulate gambling?

Potential Outcomes and Implications

If the Court accepts the case, it could:

Each outcome carries significant economic and regulatory consequences for the burgeoning prediction market industry.

Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment for Regulation

The Supreme Court’s involvement would mark a turning point for prediction markets. As the industry grows—fueled by technology and investor appetite—the need for clear, consistent rules has never been greater. Whether event contracts are treated as legitimate financial instruments or as prohibited gambling will shape not only the future of these platforms but also the balance of power between federal and state regulators.