NextFin News - The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to settle one of the fastest-building regulatory battles in finance: whether Washington or the states get to control prediction markets, an industry that just posted $188 billion in quarterly trading volume. The question, now before the justices in Flaherty v. KalshiEX, is whether a single word in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act — "swap" — silently federalized a multi-billion-dollar sports-betting industry that states have regulated since the Supreme Court itself opened the door to legal wagering in 2018.
The stakes extend well beyond one company. On the first Sunday of the 2026 NFL season alone, $1.8 billion of the $3.3 billion traded across prediction markets was tied to football — more than half of all volume. With the National Football League, 39 state attorneys general, and a coalition of more than 140 Tribal Nations all urging the Court to take the case, the docket has become a collision of federal preemption, state sovereignty, sports integrity, and tribal gaming revenue.
Yesha Yadav, professor of law and associate dean at Vanderbilt Law School, said on October 13 that the Supreme Court will address prediction markets, framing the issue around what sports has created: an "attention economy" that has turned event contracts into a mass-market product faster than the law has caught up. The Court has not yet agreed to hear the case. Kalshi has until November 9 to file its response, and the justices are not expected to decide whether to grant review until December at the earliest.
The Case That Split the Circuits
New Jersey and its Division of Gaming Enforcement filed their petition for a writ of certiorari on September 2, 2026, docketed six days later as case No. 26-299. The question presented is narrow and consequential: "Whether the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act preempted States from regulating sports bets that occur within their jurisdictions if those bets are offered on markets registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission."
The case arrives with a clean circuit split, the kind of disagreement that typically draws Supreme Court review. On April 6, 2026, a divided 2-1 panel of the Third Circuit ruled in KalshiEX, LLC v. Flaherty that the Commodity Exchange Act likely preempts state regulation of sports-related event contracts traded on a CFTC-registered designated contract market. Writing for the majority, Judge Porter held that the Dodd-Frank "Special Rule" — 7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C)(i) — gives the CFTC, not the states, the authority to decide whether sport-event contracts should be prohibited on a designated market as "contrary to the public interest" because they involve gambling. Judge Roth dissented.
Four months later, the Ninth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion. In KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad, decided August 28, 2026, a unanimous panel authored by Judge Ryan D. Nelson held that Kalshi's sports-event contracts are not "swaps" at all under CEA § 1a(47)(A)(ii), because they do not involve an "event or contingency associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence." The court's distinction was pointed: the Super Bowl is an event, but who wins it is not. The panel affirmed the dissolution of Kalshi's injunction against the Nevada Gaming Control Board and resolved the consolidated Crypto.com and Robinhood Derivatives appeals the same way, remanding only the separate question of election contracts.
The Sixth Circuit joined the split on September 25 in KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, ruling unanimously that the contracts are not swaps and that, even if they were, Ohio's and Tennessee's gambling laws would not be preempted. The ruling vacated the injunction that had shielded Kalshi from Tennessee's sports-wagering regime, sending that case back to the federal trial court in the Middle District of Tennessee — meaning Tennessee's handle-based tax and licensing framework could be applied to Kalshi's sports contracts well before any Supreme Court decision resolves the national question.
More decisions are coming. Cases are pending in the Second, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, along with a separate Arizona matter in the Ninth. Lower federal courts have also divided: district judges in New York and Maryland denied Kalshi injunctions even while assuming swap status, while a Minnesota court preliminarily enjoined a broader prediction-market ban.
Why the Definition of a "Swap" Decides an Industry
The entire fight turns on statutory interpretation of a law written for a different world. Section 2(a)(1)(A) of the Commodity Exchange Act expressly preempts state regulation of swaps traded on a designated contract market. So if a football contract is a "swap," states are locked out. If it is not, the patchwork of state gambling laws that grew up after Murphy v. NCAA in 2018 stays in place.
The Ninth and Sixth Circuits anchored their reading to the swap definition's requirement of a "financial, economic, or commercial consequence." A weather derivative that pays a utility when heating-degree days spike clearly qualifies — the payoff hedges a commercial exposure. A contract that pays out because a quarterback throws three touchdown passes does not, in those courts' view, hedge anything; it is a wager on an outcome.
The Third Circuit, by contrast, deferred to the regulatory structure. Its logic effectively makes the CFTC the gatekeeper: the agency can prohibit gambling-like contracts as contrary to the public interest, but unless it does, states cannot step in. New Jersey's petition attacks that move directly, arguing that the Third Circuit has let an agency decide a question of state police power that Congress never clearly delegated.
There is a second, quieter argument lurking beneath the surface, and it may matter as much as the swap definition. The Third Circuit's approach means the fate of sports-event contracts depends on the administrative — and potentially political — preferences of the CFTC's leadership. The agency's position has already swung hard. In June 2024, the prior CFTC administration proposed rules that would have broadly barred political and sports-related event contracts as "contrary to the public interest." That proposal was never finalized, and in February 2026 the agency formally withdrew it. Days later, on February 17, 2026, the CFTC filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit affirming its "exclusive jurisdiction" over event contracts.
"CFTC-registered exchanges have faced an onslaught of lawsuits seeking to limit Americans' access to event contracts and undermine the CFTC's sole regulatory jurisdiction over prediction markets. This power grab ignores the law and decades of precedent," CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig said in the agency's February 17 press release.
That pendulum swing is exactly why the states' coalition frames this as a question of democratic accountability. If Congress wanted to federalize sports betting through Dodd-Frank, the petition argues, it would have said so plainly — not buried the decision in a definition written to regulate interest-rate and credit derivatives after the 2008 crisis.
The Stakeholders Stack Up Against Kalshi
The amicus lineup reads like a map of who stands to lose if federal preemption wins. The NFL filed its brief supporting New Jersey in October, warning that delay itself creates harm. "Billions of dollars will be bet on NFL games through prediction markets each season, and any delay from the Court will result in increasing consumer harm and risk to game integrity," the league wrote. The league has pressed the CFTC to ban specific market categories — including contracts tied to officiating and those easily manipulated by a single participant — and to raise the trading age to 21 from 18. It says the agency has not acted.
The CFTC's response was that the league declined to formalize cooperation. "It's unfortunate the NFL declined to sign an MOU with the CFTC which would've provided the league the ability to better discuss, cooperate, and exchange information with us to promote the integrity and resilience of prediction markets," said Brooke Nethercott, the agency's public affairs director.
The NFL's underlying complaint is capacity. State gambling regulators employ hundreds of staff across their jurisdictions; the CFTC has 543 employees overseeing the entire U.S. derivatives complex. "Without adequate staff engaged in oversight and enforcement, even the best regulations cannot meaningfully ensure game integrity and consumer protection," the league wrote.
Tribal Nations have joined on parallel grounds. More than 140 Tribal Nations and Tribal organizations, represented by the Native American Rights Fund, filed an amicus brief on October 8 arguing that Kalshi is offering sports betting on Indian lands without tribal authorization, in violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and tribal-state compacts. The brief notes that more than 250 Tribal governments operate gaming facilities across 29 states, and that the revenue supports health care, education, housing, public safety, and cultural preservation.
"Every dollar illegally diverted to gaming on prediction markets is a dollar that no longer goes to jobs, housing, healthcare, education, public safety, and other critical government services for tribal citizens and their surrounding communities," the coalition wrote.
The Market That Outran the Law
While the courts have argued, the industry has scaled at a pace that helps explain why everyone is in such a hurry. Prediction markets recorded $188 billion in trading volume in the third quarter of 2026 — up nearly 70 percent from the previous quarter and 21 times the level of the same quarter a year earlier. Combined open interest across Kalshi and Polymarket reached approximately $1.4 billion.
Kalshi has been the main growth engine, and sports is the main driver inside Kalshi: sports accounted for roughly 40 percent of its third-quarter volume. The concentration is even sharper on shorter windows. In May 2026, sports contracts on Kalshi reached $10.44 billion, about 60 times the volume of election contracts that month. On Polymarket, sports made up 56.5 percent of platform volume by June.
The growth trajectory has been exponential from a small base. Combined lifetime volume across Kalshi and Polymarket crossed $150 billion in April 2026, ending a seven-month streak of monthly records. Monthly volume peaked at $25.7 billion in March 2026 before moderating to a combined roughly $25 billion across the two platforms in April.
Sports is not an accidental category. It is the product that turned prediction markets from a niche used by economists and traders into a consumer app. That is the "attention economy" Yadav pointed to: event contracts compete for the same moments of public attention that drive sportsbooks, fantasy leagues, and social media — and they do it with a regulatory arbitrage that traditional sportsbooks do not enjoy.
What the Court's Options Actually Are
The justices have three realistic paths, and each has a different market consequence. First, they could deny review, leaving the circuit split in place and letting the Sixth Circuit's ruling take effect in Ohio and Tennessee while the Third Circuit's shield holds in New Jersey. That outcome would preserve the current patchwork — the least disruptive option in the short run, but the one that guarantees more litigation as platforms and states test the boundaries state by state.
Second, they could grant review and side with the states. That would restore state primacy over sports-event contracts, effectively treating prediction-market sports wagers like any other bet. The immediate effect would be felt in states with mature gambling regimes — New Jersey, Nevada, Tennessee — where platforms would face licensing, taxation, and product restrictions. It would also hand the NFL and Tribal Nations the regulatory leverage they are asking for. But it would not necessarily end federal oversight: election, economic, and other non-sports contracts would remain in play, and the Ninth Circuit expressly remanded the election-contract question.
Third, they could grant review and side with Kalshi and the CFTC. That would nationalize a single regulatory standard under the CFTC and remove the state-by-state compliance burden that platforms cite as their biggest obstacle to scaling. It would also centralize game-integrity enforcement in an agency the NFL has already declared understaffed for the task. On that reading, the winners are the platforms; the question left open is whether a 543-person agency can police a market that just traded $188 billion in a quarter.
There is a fourth possibility that no one is discussing openly: the Court could take the case but narrow its ruling to the swap definition, leaving the preemption question for another day. That would give the industry some clarity without fully resolving the federal-state balance — a judicial minimalism that would please no one completely but might be the path of least resistance for a Court that has shown increasing skepticism of broad administrative deference.
The Counter-Thesis: This Is Not a Crisis, and the Patchwork Works
The strongest argument against Supreme Court intervention is that the system is already doing what Murphy v. NCAA designed it to do. When the Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in 2018, it returned gambling policy to the states precisely so that different jurisdictions could experiment with different rules. A circuit split is not a malfunction in that design; it is the ordinary friction of a federal system absorbing a new product.
On this view, the Sixth Circuit's September ruling demonstrates the patchwork working as intended: Tennessee's tax and licensing regime is now on a path to apply to Kalshi's sports contracts through ordinary litigation, without any need for the Supreme Court to nationalize the question. States with hundreds of gambling regulators are better positioned than a single federal agency to police game integrity, enforce age limits, and collect tax revenue. The NFL's own preferred outcome — state-level control with uniform integrity standards — can be achieved through interstate coordination and model rules, the way states have cooperated on other gambling issues, without a sweeping preemption ruling.
There is also a timing argument. The Supreme Court is being asked to intervene in December, before the Second, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have even ruled. Granting review now risks freezing a body of law that is still forming, and risks deciding a question on a record shaped by one platform's products rather than the industry's full range. Patience, on this account, is not delay — it is judicial restraint.
The rebuttal is that the stakes are too large and the asymmetry too sharp to wait. A platform operating under Third Circuit protection can scale nationally today, while a state that wins in its own circuit must fight the next case in the next jurisdiction. That asymmetry favors the deep-pocketed platform, not the regulators. And the "experimentation" defense rings hollow when the product being tested is the same in every state: a sports wager, sold to the same consumers, with the same integrity risks. The question the states put to the Court is not whether gambling should be legal, but who gets to write the rules for it.
What to Watch
The first signal is the cert decision itself, expected no earlier than December. If the Court grants review in Flaherty v. KalshiEX, it may also act on the companion petition from Crypto.com's North American Derivatives Exchange, No. 26-344, which presents the same question from the Ninth Circuit side. A grant in both would signal the justices want a definitive national rule.
The second signal is Kalshi's response, due November 9. Watch whether the company argues primarily on the swap definition — a narrow, textual ground — or on broader preemption principles. A narrow framing increases the odds of a limited ruling; a broad one invites a landmark decision.
The third signal is the district-court proceedings in Tennessee after the Sixth Circuit's remand. If Tennessee begins assessing its handle-based tax against Kalshi before the Supreme Court acts, the financial pressure on the platform could force a settlement or a strategic withdrawal of sports contracts in certain states — a market-led resolution that would partially moot the legal question.
Scenarios, by time horizon: in the short term, expect volatility in how platforms list sports contracts state by state, with some pulling products from hostile jurisdictions while the split persists. Over the medium term, a pro-state ruling would push consolidation toward platforms with the compliance infrastructure to operate in multiple state regimes, and would likely lift the value of state-licensed sportsbooks relative to prediction-market upstarts. Over the long term, a pro-CFTC ruling would create a single national standard but hand enforcement of a $188-billion-a-quarter market to an agency that has already shown it swings with administrations — meaning the regulatory regime could flip again with the next change in leadership.
The falsifying signal for the view that this case will produce a durable national rule is straightforward: if the Court denies certiorari in December, the patchwork wins by default, and the real action shifts to the five circuits still waiting to rule. That outcome would be the least dramatic — and, for an industry built on regulatory ambiguity, possibly the most convenient.
The deeper truth is that the Supreme Court did not just agree to decide a case about event contracts. It is being asked to choose between two visions: a single federal standard administered by an agency whose priorities change with each administration, or fifty state regimes that can move faster than any federal rulebook. The sports-betting industry has spent the years since Murphy learning to live with the second. Prediction markets are betting they can force the first.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
