A new public safety law in Minnesota contains several provisions related to prediction market trading, including criminalization of many types of contracts on the exchanges. Gov. Tim Walz finalized the statute on Monday with his signature.
The law is sure to trigger multiple legal challenges, perhaps even before it takes effect. Minnesota is the first jurisdiction in the United States to attempt to regulate prediction exchanges via explicit legislative means so that litigation will guide precedents and inform lawmakers in other places.
Walz signs SF 4760 into law
Walz didn’t let the ink on Senate File 4760 dry much, signing the bill on May 18 after the legislature forwarded it on May 14. The new language in the Minnesota Code concerns multiple aspects of life for people in the state, including trading on prediction market websites.
Under this section of the law, Minnesota considers trading most types of designated contract markets (DCMs) on platforms like Kalshi to be gambling. The statute labels DCMs connected to sporting events as sports wagering, which is illegal in Minnesota.
Promotion of exchanges will also be grounds for potential prosecution in Minnesota when the tenets take effect on Aug. 1, 2026. Challenges to the new law might not wait for that effective date, though.
Complaints challenging Minnesota law could be in the works
Often, challenges to the validity of a law lack sufficient grounds to mount a serious front until after statutes take effect. There are narrower paths to questioning the constitutionality of a statute, though, called facial challenges.
In such complaints, the plaintiff alleges that there is no possible application of the statute that could fit within the constraints placed upon laws of its kind by the US Constitution. It’s a tall order in most circumstances, but it could function as a means to an end for parties mounting these challenges.
Complaints could cite the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution and argue that Minnesota’s law violates it by directly contradicting explicit parts of federal law. The lawsuits could also ask the court to block Minnesota from implementing the statute until the case can be heard.
The exchanges, like Kalshi, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) may file such lawsuits. The CFTC has already sued multiple other state governments for taking enforcement actions against exchanges.
Regardless of which entities file the challenges, this situation escalates the gravity of the legal challenges regarding state sovereignty and the nature of prediction market trading. Minnesota has effectively issued a challenge.
Forthcoming litigation will have substantial weight
Whether lawsuits come before or after Aug. 1, the US District Court for Minnesota and the US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will be a center of attention for the CFTC, prediction market operators, and state governments. The court will consider some novel matters.
- Did Minnesota go too far by enshrining statutes that directly and explicitly govern prediction markets?
- How much leeway should be afforded to Minnesota in terms of its right to adjudicate what is and is not gambling activity within its borders?
- Is there any way that exchanges can simultaneously comply with federal regulations and Minnesota’s law?
How the courts answer these questions and others will guide the decisions of legislators in other parts of the US and serve as precedent for other courts to look to. Because of Walz’s approval of SF 4760, the question is not whether the courts will weigh in on these matters. The question is how soon they will do so.
