NextFin News - Six of the largest names in crypto and electronic trading have lined up behind the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission in a court fight that will decide whether American investors can legally trade perpetual futures on individual stocks. Coinbase, Kalshi, Kraken parent Payward, DRW Holdings, Jump Trading and Paradigm asked a federal judge this week for permission to file an amicus brief defending the regulator's authority to approve the products, pushing back against a lawsuit from the Capital Markets Alliance and its backers, Cboe and Citadel Securities, that seeks to vacate the approvals. The filing arrives one week after a federal judge denied the challengers' request for an emergency trading halt but also signaled that they are likely to succeed on the merits — a split decision that leaves the products trading for now while casting serious doubt on the legal pathway that allowed them to launch.
The Filing and the Fault Line
The dispute centers on a regulatory green light that took effect on Nov. 2, 2026, when applications from Coinbase Derivatives, KalshiEX and Bitnomial to list single-stock perpetual futures were deemed approved under the CFTC's self-certification rules. All three exchanges filed their applications on Sept. 18, and the approvals came through at the end of the regulator's standard 45-day review period. The next day, CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig announced that "perpetual futures contracts on individual equity securities" could begin trading for the first time on CFTC-registered exchanges that also handle security futures and are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Within 48 hours, the Capital Markets Alliance — an industry group supported by options-exchange operator Cboe, market maker Citadel Securities and the Healthy Markets Association — sued in Manhattan federal court to overturn the decision. The case, docketed before Judge Lorna G. Schofield, argues that the CFTC breached the Administrative Procedure Act by giving no explanation for its decision, and that perpetual contracts on single equities are not futures at all but security-based swaps, which fall under the SEC's exclusive jurisdiction. The complaint asks the court to vacate the approvals, declare the products security-based swaps, and bar the CFTC from giving the approvals effect while the case runs.
The six-firm amicus filing is the market's answer. Ryan VanGrack of Coinbase said in a statement accompanying the filing: "U.S. investors deserve access to these markets under the strong consumer protections and joint oversight of the CFTC and SEC. The U.S. should lead, not cede, this space." The subtext is unmistakable: the firms that have invested in building onshore perpetual products are asking the court to preserve the regulatory pathway that makes those products possible.
The CFTC's position rests on a memorandum of understanding the two agencies entered earlier in 2026 and on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which defines security futures as futures contracts on a single security and subjects them to joint CFTC-SEC oversight. Chairman Selig said the products were deemed approved under Commission Regulation 40.3, the CFTC rule on product approvals via self-certification, and remain subject to the Commodity Exchange Act, federal securities laws and both agencies' frameworks.
"Today, perpetual futures contracts on individual equity securities (the 'Equity Perps') can begin trading for the first time on CFTC-registered exchanges," Chairman Selig said on Nov. 3, 2026.
The challengers' leadership framed the fight in starker terms. Adam Ford, secretary of the Capital Markets Alliance, said: "Coherent regulatory oversight underpins the global pre-eminence of US securities markets." Craig Donohue, chief executive of Cboe, said: "This issue, however, is about investor protection for securities trading and the rule of law."
The Court Has Already Drawn Blood
The amicus brief is being filed into a case where the judge has already telegraphed her leanings. In a Nov. 3 order, Judge Valerie Caproni denied the alliance's request for a temporary restraining order — but not because she was persuaded by the CFTC's legal position. She denied emergency relief on the narrower ground that the alleged harms did not warrant an immediate halt. On the underlying merits, her assessment ran the other way: she wrote that the contracts do not appear to qualify as security futures because they lack a provision for the future sale of a single security, and instead appear to fit the definition of a swap overseen by the SEC. She also found that the balance of equities and the public interest favor the alliance, writing that the agency's actions appear to represent a major disruption to the equities market.
That distinction matters for anyone reading the headlines. A denied temporary restraining order is often reported as a win for the products being challenged. In this case, the denial was procedural; the judge's substantive read was a loss. The approvals remain in place only because the court declined to freeze them before fully considering a separate request for a preliminary injunction — a higher, merits-weighted standard that the alliance is still pursuing. The government's opposition was due Nov. 6, with the alliance's reply due Nov. 10, the same day the amicus brief was submitted.
The practical consequence is that trading has continued in the interim. By Nov. 4, Kalshi was listing single-stock perpetuals on Amgen, Costco, McDonald's and Qualcomm, with estimated leverage near five times on the largest names. That window could close if a preliminary injunction issues, which is precisely why the amicus filers are arguing the merits now rather than waiting for the court's next move.
Why the Classification Question Decides Everything
The entire fight turns on a definitional question that sounds technical but carries billions of dollars of consequence: what is a perpetual future?
A conventional futures contract is an agreement to buy or sell an asset at a set price on a set future date. That fixed delivery date is embedded in the legal definition of a future under the Commodity Exchange Act. A perpetual contract has no expiry. Instead of converging to a spot price at maturity, it stays open indefinitely, with a periodic funding-rate payment between long and short holders that keeps the contract's price tethered to the underlying asset.
That structural difference is the challengers' weapon, and it is the feature Judge Caproni zeroed in on. If a contract has no delivery date, the Capital Markets Alliance argues, it cannot be a "security future" under the 2000 law. Under that reading, single-stock perps would be swaps — a category that, when based on a single equity, falls under SEC authority and cannot be self-certified through the CFTC's Regulation 40.3 pathway.
The CFTC's position, articulated in Chairman Selig's statement and in the agency's earlier treatment of bitcoin perpetuals, is that the absence of a fixed expiration does not disqualify a contract from being a future. The regulator has effectively separated the economic function of the instrument from the mechanical requirement of a maturity date. That is the interpretive leap the court is now being asked to bless — or reject — and the judge's early order suggests she is not inclined to accept it.
Three Sides, Not Two: The CME's Parallel War
Complicating the picture is a second lawsuit running on a parallel track in a different court. On June 18, 2026, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange sued the CFTC in Washington, D.C., challenging the agency's May 29 approval of Kalshi's bitcoin perpetual futures contract and its accompanying policy statement on perpetual listings. Court records identify the case as Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. v. Michael S. Selig and Commodity Futures Trading Commission, No. 1:26-cv-02157 (D.D.C.).
CME's argument is different from the Capital Markets Alliance's, and in some ways more awkward for the pro-perp coalition. The exchange does not argue that perpetuals should be banned outright; it argues that the CFTC failed to properly assess whether perpetuals are futures or swaps, and that allowing them to be listed as futures lets them compete unlawfully with CME's own retail-oriented digital commodity futures. The exchange pointed to trading volume as evidence of the competitive threat: within one week of launch, Kalshi's perpetual contracts crossed $1 billion in notional volume across more than a dozen contracts.
The strategic map is now three-sided. On one side, the crypto and electronic-trading firms want perpetuals recognized as futures so they can list them onshore. On another, the equities and options complex — Cboe, Citadel Securities and their allies — wants the products classified as swaps, which would block the CFTC pathway and protect the existing equity-derivatives franchise. On the third, the incumbent futures exchange wants perpetuals kept out of the futures category altogether, or at least out of direct competition with its own products. A ruling that helps one coalition can injure another, and the amicus brief's "U.S. should lead" framing does nothing to resolve the tension between the first and third camps.
Cyclical or Structural: This Is a Regime Call
It is tempting to read the legal back-and-forth as a cyclical fluctuation in crypto regulation — another lawsuit, another delay, another headline that will fade. That reading is wrong. This is a structural decision, and the reason is that the classification of perpetual futures determines the permanent architecture of U.S. derivatives access, not the timing of a single product launch.
A cyclical regulatory obstacle is one that delays a market but does not change its destination: a pause, a comment period, a remand that sends an agency back to redo its analysis. The perpetual-futures fight is different because the destination itself is in question. If perpetuals are futures under joint CFTC-SEC oversight, they can be listed on regulated U.S. contract markets with the consumer protections, clearing and surveillance that come with that status. If they are swaps tied to a single security, the onshore pathway effectively closes, and the market migrates to venues outside U.S. jurisdiction — which is precisely where much of it already sits.
The evidence for a structural shift, if the CFTC's reading holds, is straightforward. Perpetual futures are the dominant derivatives format in crypto globally, with the majority of trading volume in digital assets already occurring in perpetual contracts rather than dated futures. Single-stock perpetuals extend that format into equities — a market orders of magnitude larger. Legalizing the structure onshore does not merely add a product; it imports a trading convention that has been standard offshore into the U.S. regulated complex. Conventions of that kind, once established in the rulebook, do not revert.
But the structural call carries a condition, and it is important to state it plainly: the shift is structural only if the courts uphold the CFTC's interpretation. A ruling that perpetuals are swaps would not be a delay — it would be a different regime, one in which single-stock perps are not listable on CFTC markets at all. There is no middle path that merely pushes the launch back. The binary is real, which is why both sides are litigating now rather than waiting.
The Second-Order Question: Who Captures the Flow
The first-order story is about legal classification. The second-order story — the one the filings gesture at but do not fully articulate — is about who captures the order flow if the onshore market opens.
Today, a large share of perpetual futures trading in crypto happens on offshore venues. The firms behind this week's amicus brief are, in effect, bidding to repatriate that flow into U.S.-regulated venues. Coinbase Derivatives, KalshiEX, Bitnomial and others have built or are building the infrastructure to list these products under CFTC oversight. If the legal pathway holds, the beneficiaries are the exchanges and market makers that have already invested in that infrastructure, and the losers are the offshore venues that currently intermediate the risk.
That is why the "U.S. should lead, not cede" framing matters. It is not just consumer-protection rhetoric; it is a claim on a future revenue pool. Perpetuals on single stocks would sit adjacent to, and potentially compete with, single-stock options, equity futures and CFD-like products that have historically been unavailable to U.S. retail. The size of that opportunity is why Cboe and Citadel Securities — firms whose businesses are built on listed equity derivatives and market making — are fighting to keep the CFTC pathway closed. They are not arguing against perpetuals in the abstract; they are arguing against a new competitor entering their market under a different regulator's rulebook.
The CME's separate lawsuit adds a further wrinkle. Even among firms that might otherwise be natural allies in favor of derivatives innovation, the incumbents are protecting their own franchises. CME's concern that perpetuals would cannibalize its retail digital commodity futures shows that the "pro-innovation" coalition has internal fault lines. A regulatory regime that opens perpetuals may simply relocate competition from the courtroom to the marketplace — which, from an investor's standpoint, is exactly what a functioning market is supposed to do.
What to Watch
Short term (weeks): The immediate signal is the Southern District of New York's handling of the Capital Markets Alliance's request for a preliminary injunction. The temporary restraining order was denied on procedural grounds, but a preliminary injunction is a separate, merits-weighted standard. Judge Caproni's finding that the alliance is likely to succeed on the merits raises the probability that an injunction issues. If it does, trading would be halted pending the full case, and the market would price a high probability that the CFTC pathway fails. Coinbase shares were little changed on the news, trading around $136.10, up 0.99% on the day.
Medium term (months): The substantive merits ruling on whether perpetual contracts qualify as security futures under the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This is the decision that determines whether the Nov. 2 approvals stand. Watch for the court's treatment of two features: the funding-rate mechanism and the absence of a delivery date. Those are the two characteristics most likely to drive a "swap" classification, and the CFTC's amicus supporters have yet to offer a legal theory that fully reconciles them with the statutory definition of a future.
Long term (quarters to years): The parallel D.D.C. case brought by CME. Even if the Capital Markets Alliance loses, a ruling in CME's favor could constrain how perpetuals are listed or force the CFTC to revisit its policy statement on perpetual contracts. The two cases together will define the boundaries of the market, not just its existence.
The falsifying signal for the view that onshore single-stock perps are coming is specific and observable: a district court ruling — in either the SDNY case before Judge Schofield or the D.D.C. case brought by CME — that perpetual contracts lacking a fixed delivery date cannot be classified as futures or security futures. That single outcome would vacate the approvals, close the CFTC self-certification pathway for single-name perps, and confirm that the structural shift this filing is meant to secure will not happen on the regulator's current timeline, if at all.
The Bottom Line
This week's amicus brief is more than a show of industry support for a regulator. It is a coordinated bet by the firms best positioned to profit from a new onshore asset class that the legal system has not yet agreed exists. The CFTC has opened the door; the courts will decide whether it was authorized to do so. The answer will determine not just whether single-stock perpetuals trade in the United States, but whether the next generation of derivatives innovation is built onshore under U.S. oversight or continues to migrate to jurisdictions with fewer questions to answer.
The central judgment: the market may treat this as a cyclical legal delay, but the classification question is structural — and the side that wins it wins the architecture of U.S. derivatives for the next decade. Judge Caproni's early order is the single biggest risk to that outcome, and it is the one variable the amicus brief cannot argue away with volume figures or consumer-protection language. The products are trading today. Whether they are still trading when this case ends is the question the next filing will have to answer.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
