Tracking CFTC, state, tribe and operators
Prediction Market Legal Tracker
The fight over prediction markets is increasingly a three-way jurisdictional battle between the CFTC, state regulators and federally regulated trading platforms. Records are checked against linked court, regulator and agency material; entries without a retrievable primary docket or order are explicitly marked source-incomplete.
Five federal courts of appeals — the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth and Ninth Circuits — have the preemption question before them. The Third Circuit has issued the only appellate opinion addressing the preliminary-injunction/preemption question; the Ninth Circuit has ruled on emergency-stay requests.
Case records
73 party/relationship records, most recent court activity first. Select a party or a relationship type above to filter.
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- King County Superior Court, Washington; removed action in W.D. Washington
- Filed
- March 28, 2026
- Last court activity
- August 13, 2026
- Plaintiff
- State of Washington
- Defendant
- KalshiEX LLC
- Appeal status
- Ninth Circuit denied Kalshi an emergency stay
- Core legal question
- Whether Kalshi offers illegal gambling in Washington and whether it must geofence the state.
- Latest material ruling
- Judge John H. McHale issued a final enforcement order on August 13, 2026 requiring Kalshi to stop offering sports, election, politics, entertainment, culture, technology and science contracts in Washington, with IP-based geofencing by August 19 and third-party geofencing by September 2, under penalty of $120,000 per day. Commodity, climate, economics and finance contracts are exempt. The state pursued penalties in August over alleged non-compliance.
- Verification
- The linked May 18 Ninth Circuit stay opposition predates and does not establish the August 13 final-order terms; the signed final order is not linked.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Supporting appellate filing: Washington opposition to emergency stay, filed May 18, 2026W.D. Wash. No. 2:26-cv-01062-JCC; 9th Cir. No. 26-3106
- Relationship
- Federal action
- Court
- Administrative — CFTC
- Filed
- August 11, 2026
- Last court activity
- August 11, 2026
- Issuing authority
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Order recipient
- KalshiEX LLC
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether the Commission’s emergency authority can hold a designated contract market open while a state seeks to shut it down.
- Latest material ruling
- Order issued. The CFTC described a sudden shutdown as an existential threat to its jurisdiction. It is an administrative order, not a court ruling, and does not resolve the New York litigation.
Source: official CFTC release and order
- Relationship
- State side of platform challenge; same proceeding as the adjacent Kalshi card
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of Utah
- Filed
- February 24, 2026
- Last court activity
- August 5, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- Governor Spencer Cox and Utah state officials
- Appeal status
- None recorded
- Core legal question
- Whether Utah, which prohibits gambling outright, may enforce its statutes against a federally registered exchange.
- Latest material ruling
- A federal judge ruled on August 5, 2026 that Utah may enforce its anti-gambling laws against Kalshi.
Source: federal docket listing. Open the docket listing. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: D. Utah No. 2:26-cv-00151, KalshiEX LLC v. Cox
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of Utah
- Filed
- February 24, 2026
- Last court activity
- August 5, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- Governor Spencer Cox and Utah state officials
- Appeal status
- None recorded
- Core legal question
- Whether Utah’s enforcement effort intrudes on exclusive CFTC authority over derivatives trading.
- Latest material ruling
- A federal judge ruled on August 5, 2026 that Utah may enforce its anti-gambling laws against Kalshi.
Source: federal docket listing. Open the docket listing. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: D. Utah No. 2:26-cv-00151, KalshiEX LLC v. Cox
- Relationship
- Federal action
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut
- Filed
- April 2, 2026
- Last court activity
- August 2026
- Plaintiff
- United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Defendant
- State of Connecticut; Ned Lamont; William Tong; Bryan Cafferelli; Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, Gaming Division; Kristofer Gilman
- Appeal status
- Stay requested pending Second and Ninth Circuit decisions
- Core legal question
- Whether Connecticut may enforce cease-and-desist orders treating sports and election contracts as unlicensed online gambling.
- Latest material ruling
- Injunctive relief entered against state enforcement. Connecticut moved in August 2026 to stay proceedings pending appellate rulings.
- Verification
- The filed complaint is linked; the later August injunction and stay motion are not linked in this card.
Source: official CFTC release and filed complaint
Court record: D. Conn. No. 3:26-cv-00498
- Relationship
- Federal action
- Court
- U.S. District Court (New York)
- Filed
- April 24, 2026
- Last court activity
- August 2026
- Plaintiff
- United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Defendant
- State of New York; Kathleen Hochul; Letitia James; New York State Gaming Commission; Robert Williams; Brian O’Dwyer; John A. Crotty; Sylvia B. Hamer; Martin J. Mack; Peter J. Moschetti Jr.; Marissa Shorenstein; Jerry Skurnik
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether New York’s gambling licensing regime can reach sports event contracts listed on a designated contract market.
- Latest material ruling
- Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York denied the United States and CFTC emergency motion for a temporary restraining order in August 2026, leaving New York free to pursue enforcement while the preliminary injunction fight continues. A separate SDNY ruling on July 9, 2026 went against Kalshi on the same question.
- Verification
- The filed complaint is linked; the later order denying emergency relief is not linked in this card.
Source: official CFTC release and filed complaint
Court record: S.D.N.Y. No. 1:26-cv-03404
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- Michigan state court (remanded from federal court)
- Filed
- March 2026
- Last court activity
- August 2026
- Plaintiff
- Attorney General Dana Nessel
- Defendant
- KalshiEX LLC
- Appeal status
- Stay sought pending appellate decisions
- Core legal question
- Whether Michigan gaming law reaches sports event contracts, and whether the dispute belongs in state or federal court.
- Latest material ruling
- A federal judge remanded the case to state court in June 2026. An injunction against Kalshi followed on July 5, 2026 — the third state court order blocking the platform. Michigan moved in August 2026 to stay pending appellate rulings.
- Verification
- Primary docket or order is not linked; party names and procedural details remain source-incomplete.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- New York Supreme Court, New York County — removal to S.D.N.Y. contested
- Filed
- July 31, 2026
- Last court activity
- August 2026
- Plaintiff
- Attorney General Letitia James
- Defendant
- KalshiEX LLC
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Kalshi runs an unlicensed gambling business in New York. The state seeks a permanent injunction and more than $36 billion in damages.
- Latest material ruling
- No merits ruling. Kalshi removed the case to federal court the same day; the state moved to remand and Kalshi filed its opposition in August 2026. The CFTC issued an emergency order on August 11, 2026 directing Kalshi to keep operating.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: N.Y. Cnty. Sup. Ct. No. 453272/2026
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- New York state court
- Filed
- April 21, 2026
- Last court activity
- August 2026
- Petitioner
- People of the State of New York, by Attorney General Letitia James
- Respondent
- Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc.
- Appeal status
- Stay sought
- Core legal question
- Whether Coinbase’s prediction market offering is an unlicensed gambling operation under New York law.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date. Coinbase moved in August 2026 to stay the case pending appellate rulings.
- Verification
- The verified petition is linked; the later reported stay motion is not linked in this card.
Source: verified petition
Court record: N.Y. Cnty. Sup. Ct. Index No. 451604/2026
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- Administrative — Dept. of Consumer Protection, Gaming Division
- Filed
- 2026 (first quarter)
- Last court activity
- August 2026
- Issuing authority
- Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection
- Order recipients
- Multiple platforms, including KalshiEX LLC
- Appeal status
- Related appeal pending, Second Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether sports and election contracts constitute illegal online gambling under Connecticut law.
- Latest material ruling
- Enforcement is currently blocked. The United States and CFTC sued Connecticut on April 2, 2026 and secured injunctive relief. Platforms continue to operate in the state.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: D. Conn. No. 3:25-cv-02016 (Kalshi v. Cafferelli)
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court (Washington)
- Filed
- 2026
- Last court activity
- August 2026
- Plaintiff
- North American Derivatives Exchange (Nadex)
- Defendant
- State of Washington
- Appeal status
- Stayed pending the consolidated Nevada appeals
- Core legal question
- Whether Washington gambling law is preempted as applied to Nadex event contracts.
- Latest material ruling
- The parties agreed in August 2026 to pause the case pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the consolidated Nevada appeals.
- Verification
- No Nadex Washington docket or stay stipulation is linked; the Kalshi Ninth Circuit article is background only.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- Ohio Casino Control Commission; Ohio courts
- Filed
- 2025-03 (cease-and-desist); 2026-04-14 (penalty)
- Last court activity
- July 30, 2026
- Issuing authority
- Ohio Casino Control Commission
- Order recipient
- KalshiEX LLC
- Appeal status
- On appeal, Sixth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether Kalshi operated unlicensed gaming in Ohio, evaded the state’s 20% sports betting tax and failed age verification requirements.
- Latest material ruling
- Cease-and-desist letter issued March 2025. The Commission announced a $5 million civil penalty on April 14, 2026. A federal court denied Kalshi’s separate request for a preliminary injunction; that ruling did not finally adjudicate the validity of the administrative penalty. The CFTC filed an amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit on May 12, 2026.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: S.D. Ohio No. 2:25-cv-01165, KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler et al.; 6th Cir. No. 26-3196
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- Administrative — Tennessee Sports Wagering Council
- Filed
- January 2026
- Last related court activity
- July 30, 2026
- Issuing agency
- Tennessee Sports Wagering Council
- Order recipient
- KalshiEX LLC
- Related federal appeal
- KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel et al., pending in the Sixth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether Kalshi requires a Tennessee sports wagering license to offer sports event contracts.
- Latest material ruling
- The Council’s enforcement is blocked by preliminary relief entered in the separate federal case KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel et al. The federal court issued a TRO in January 2026 and a preliminary injunction on February 20, 2026; the related appeal is pending in the Sixth Circuit.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: M.D. Tenn. No. 3:26-cv-00034, KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel et al.
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (from S.D. Ohio)
- Filed
- October 7, 2025
- Last court activity
- July 30, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- Matthew T. Schuler et al.
- Appeal status
- On appeal, Sixth Circuit No. 26-3196
- Core legal question
- Whether sports event contracts qualify as swaps under the CEA and displace Ohio’s gaming authority.
- Latest material ruling
- Judge Sarah Morrison denied Kalshi’s preliminary injunction on March 10, 2026, holding the contracts are not swaps, then denied an injunction pending appeal on March 20. The Sixth Circuit denied Kalshi a stay on April 24 and expedited the appeal, and heard consolidated argument with the Tennessee case on July 30, 2026. No decision as of August 26, 2026.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: S.D. Ohio No. 2:25-cv-01165, KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler et al.; 6th Cir. No. 26-3196
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee; on appeal to the Sixth Circuit
- Filed
- January 9, 2026
- Last court activity
- July 30, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- Orgel et al.
- Appeal status
- On appeal, Sixth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether the CEA preempts Tennessee’s sports wagering licensing requirement as applied to event contracts.
- Latest material ruling
- TRO in January 2026, then a preliminary injunction on February 20, 2026 finding the contracts are likely CFTC-regulated swaps — the opposite conclusion from the Ohio district court three weeks later, creating conflicting district-court rulings within the Sixth Circuit.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: M.D. Tenn. No. 3:26-cv-00034, KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel et al.
- Relationship
- Federal action
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
- Filed
- May 19, 2026
- Last court activity
- July 27, 2026
- Plaintiff
- United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Defendant
- State of Minnesota; Tim Walz; Keith Ellison; Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Jon Anglin
- Appeal status
- None recorded
- Core legal question
- Whether SF4760, the first state statute banning prediction market platforms outright, is preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act.
- Latest material ruling
- Judge Katherine Menendez granted a preliminary injunction on July 27, 2026, finding the operators likely to succeed on preemption and stopping the August 1 effective date. This is preliminary relief, not a merits judgment.
- Verification
- The filed complaint is linked; the July 27 preliminary-injunction order is not linked in this card.
Source: official CFTC release and filed complaint
Court record: D. Minn. No. 0:26-cv-02661
- Relationship
- Duplicate platform view of one Minnesota proceeding
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
- Filed
- June 2026
- Last court activity
- July 27, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC; Polymarket
- Defendant
- State of Minnesota
- Appeal status
- None recorded
- Core legal question
- Whether the first state statutory ban on prediction markets is preempted by the CEA.
- Latest material ruling
- Judge Katherine Menendez granted a preliminary injunction on July 27, 2026, finding the platforms likely to succeed on preemption and blocking the August 1 effective date. Preliminary relief only.
- Verification
- Primary docket or order is not linked; party names and procedural details remain source-incomplete.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
- Relationship
- Duplicate platform view of one Minnesota proceeding
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
- Filed
- June 2026
- Last court activity
- July 27, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC; Polymarket
- Defendant
- State of Minnesota
- Appeal status
- None recorded
- Core legal question
- Whether the first state statutory ban on prediction markets is preempted by the CEA.
- Latest material ruling
- Judge Katherine Menendez granted a preliminary injunction on July 27, 2026, finding the platforms likely to succeed on preemption and blocking the August 1 effective date. Preliminary relief only.
- Verification
- Primary docket or order is not linked; party names and procedural details remain source-incomplete.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
- Relationship
- Tribal claim
- Court
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; on appeal to the Ninth Circuit
- Filed
- July 22, 2025
- Last court activity
- July 10, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Blue Lake Rancheria; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians
- Defendant
- KalshiEX LLC; Robinhood Derivatives, LLC
- Venue state
- California
- Appeal status
- On appeal, Ninth Circuit — argued July 10, 2026
- Core legal question
- Whether sports event contracts accessible from tribal lands are Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and whether tribal authority over gaming survives a platform’s CFTC registration. This is a federal Indian gaming claim, not a state gambling claim.
- Latest material ruling
- Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied preliminary relief in November 2025 after finding the tribes had not shown a likelihood of success. At that preliminary-injunction stage, the court reasoned that the CEA and UIGEA likely governed and that the tribes had not identified compact language barring the conduct; this was not a final merits holding displacing IGRA. A Ninth Circuit panel heard the appeal on July 10, 2026.
Source: N.D. California order. Read the preliminary-injunction order. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: N.D. Cal. No. 3:25-cv-06162
- Relationship
- Tribal claim
- Court
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; on appeal to the Ninth Circuit
- Filed
- July 22, 2025
- Last court activity
- July 10, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Blue Lake Rancheria; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians
- Defendant
- KalshiEX LLC; Robinhood Derivatives, LLC
- Venue state
- California
- Appeal status
- On appeal, Ninth Circuit — argued July 10, 2026
- Core legal question
- Whether sports event contracts accessible from tribal lands are Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and whether tribal authority over gaming survives a platform’s CFTC registration. This is a federal Indian gaming claim, not a state gambling claim.
- Latest material ruling
- Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied preliminary relief in November 2025 after finding the tribes had not shown a likelihood of success. At that preliminary-injunction stage, the court reasoned that the CEA and UIGEA likely governed and that the tribes had not identified compact language barring the conduct; this was not a final merits holding displacing IGRA. A Ninth Circuit panel heard the appeal on July 10, 2026.
Source: N.D. California order. Read the preliminary-injunction order. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: N.D. Cal. No. 3:25-cv-06162
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; on appeal to the Second Circuit
- Filed
- October 27, 2025
- Last court activity
- July 9, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- New York State Gaming Commission and state officials
- Appeal status
- On appeal, Second Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether New York gambling law is preempted by the CEA as applied to Kalshi’s sports event contracts.
- Latest material ruling
- Judge Analisa Torres denied Kalshi’s preliminary injunction on July 9, 2026, holding New York’s gambling laws are not preempted — reasoning that conflicts with the Third Circuit’s preliminary-injunction analysis, but does not itself create a circuit split. The same judge denied an injunction pending appeal in July 2026.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-08846 (Kalshi v. Williams); 2d Cir. No. 26-1835
- Relationship
- Potential platform challenge; unverified
- Court
- Not identified
- Filed
- Not verified; the page previously listed Sunday, July 5, 2026
- Last court activity
- Not verified
- Claimed plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Claimed defendant
- Ohio Casino Control Commission
- Appeal status
- Not verified
- Core legal question
- Whether the Commission may proceed with an administrative action seeking a $5 million civil penalty while the federal preemption question is on appeal.
- Latest material ruling
- No court, county, caption, case number, complaint or operative order has been supplied for this claimed state filing.
- Verification
- No court, county, case number or complaint is linked; the previously stated Sunday filing date was not relied on.
Background only: DeFi Rate. Read the related report. Last checked August 26, 2026. This entry should not be treated as docket-verified.
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico
- Filed
- July 5, 2026
- Last court activity
- July 5, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Polymarket entity not identified in linked material
- Defendant
- Attorney General Raúl Torrez
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether New Mexico’s refusal to delay enforcement created an immediate threat to a federally regulated platform.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date.
- Verification
- Primary docket or order is not linked; party names and procedural details remain source-incomplete.
- Relationship
- Federal action
- Court
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
- Filed
- April 2, 2026
- Last court activity
- July 2026
- Plaintiff
- United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Defendant
- State of Illinois; JB Pritzker; Kwame Raoul; Dionne R. Hayden; Sean Brannon; Stephen R. Ferrara; Caleb J. Melamed; Marcus D. Fruchter
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Illinois cease-and-desist orders and its subsequent licensing-and-tax statute are preempted as applied to designated contract markets.
- Latest material ruling
- Illinois moved in June 2026 to stay the federal challenge pending appellate resolution. No merits ruling.
- Verification
- The filed complaint is linked; the later motion to stay is not linked in this card.
Source: official CFTC release and filed complaint
Court record: N.D. Ill. No. 1:26-cv-03659
- Relationship
- Federal action
- Court
- Administrative — CFTC
- Filed
- 2026 (summer)
- Last court activity
- July 2026
- Issuing authority
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Order recipient
- KalshiEX LLC
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether the Commission can direct a registered exchange to keep operating after a state court order against it.
- Latest material ruling
- Order issued after a Michigan court ruled for the state. Administrative action only.
Source: official CFTC release and order
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut; on appeal to the Second Circuit
- Filed
- December 3, 2025
- Last court activity
- July 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection officials
- Appeal status
- Decision pending, Second Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether Connecticut’s cease-and-desist orders are preempted by the CEA.
- Latest material ruling
- The district court ruled against Kalshi. Kalshi appealed to the Second Circuit in mid-2026. No appellate decision as of August 26, 2026.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: D. Conn. No. 3:25-cv-02016 (Kalshi v. Cafferelli)
- Relationship
- Federal action
- Court
- U.S. District Court (Kentucky)
- Filed
- June 23, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 23, 2026
- Plaintiff
- United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Defendant
- Commonwealth of Kentucky; Andy Beshear; Russell Coleman; Thomas B. Miller; Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Kentucky’s enforcement actions and its 14.25% prediction market excise tax interfere with exclusive federal jurisdiction.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date.
Source: official CFTC release and filed complaint
Court record: E.D. Ky. No. 3:26-cv-00049-SCM
- Relationship
- Platform filter view of one of two Kentucky state proceedings
- Court
- Franklin Circuit Court, Kentucky
- Filed
- June 17, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 17, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Commonwealth of Kentucky, by Attorney General Russell Coleman
- Defendant
- Kalshi, Inc.; KalshiEX LLC; Kalshi Klear, Inc.; Kalshi Klear, LLC; Kalshi Trading, LLC
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether the platforms and their distribution partners operate unlicensed sports betting, bypassing state consumer protections and gaming taxes.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date. The CFTC sued Kentucky one week later.
Source: official CFTC release and federal complaint identifying the state case
Court record: Franklin Cir. Ct. No. 26-CI-00689
- Relationship
- Platform filter view of one of two Kentucky state proceedings
- Court
- Franklin Circuit Court, Kentucky
- Filed
- June 17, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 17, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Commonwealth of Kentucky, by Attorney General Russell Coleman
- Defendant
- Blockratize, Inc. d/b/a Polymarket; QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US; QC Clearing, LLC d/b/a Polymarket Clearing
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether the platforms and their distribution partners operate unlicensed sports betting, bypassing state consumer protections and gaming taxes.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date. The CFTC sued Kentucky one week later.
Source: official CFTC release and federal complaint identifying the state case
Court record: Franklin Cir. Ct. No. 26-CI-00696
- Relationship
- Platform filter view of one of two Kentucky state proceedings
- Court
- Franklin Circuit Court, Kentucky
- Filed
- June 17, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 17, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Commonwealth of Kentucky, by Attorney General Russell Coleman
- Defendant
- Coinbase Global, Inc.; Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc.
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether the platforms and their distribution partners operate unlicensed sports betting, bypassing state consumer protections and gaming taxes.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date. The CFTC sued Kentucky one week later.
Source: official CFTC release and federal complaint identifying the state case
Court record: Franklin Cir. Ct. No. 26-CI-00689
- Relationship
- Platform filter view of one of two Kentucky state proceedings
- Court
- Franklin Circuit Court, Kentucky
- Filed
- June 17, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 17, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Commonwealth of Kentucky, by Attorney General Russell Coleman
- Defendant
- Robinhood Derivatives LLC; Robinhood Securities, LLC
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether the platforms and their distribution partners operate unlicensed sports betting, bypassing state consumer protections and gaming taxes.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date. The CFTC sued Kentucky one week later.
Source: official CFTC release and federal complaint identifying the state case
Court record: Franklin Cir. Ct. No. 26-CI-00689
- Relationship
- Platform filter view of one of two Kentucky state proceedings
- Court
- Franklin Circuit Court, Kentucky
- Filed
- June 17, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 17, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Commonwealth of Kentucky, by Attorney General Russell Coleman
- Defendant
- Webull Corporation
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether the platforms and their distribution partners operate unlicensed sports betting, bypassing state consumer protections and gaming taxes.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date. The CFTC sued Kentucky one week later.
Source: official CFTC release and federal complaint identifying the state case
Court record: Franklin Cir. Ct. No. 26-CI-00689
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- First Judicial District Court, Carson City, Nevada (Judge Jason Woodbury)
- Filed
- February 18, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 15, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Nevada Gaming Control Board
- Defendant
- KalshiEX LLC
- Appeal status
- Related federal appeal pending, Ninth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether sports, election and entertainment contracts constitute unlicensed wagering under Nevada gaming law.
- Latest material ruling
- Temporary restraining order March 20, 2026, extended in April, followed by a preliminary injunction on May 18, 2026. Kalshi delisted its sports, election and entertainment contracts in Nevada. The Gaming Control Board asked the court on June 15, 2026 to hold Kalshi in contempt, alleging investigators bought prohibited contracts inside the state on eight occasions, and sought disgorgement of gains. Nevada and Massachusetts were the first two states to secure a preliminary injunction against Kalshi.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: Carson City Dist. Ct. No. 26 0C 00050 1B; Nev. Sup. Ct. No. 92771
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court (Kentucky)
- Filed
- June 13, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 13, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC; Crypto.com/Nadex entity; Polymarket US entity — exact caption not linked
- Defendant
- Commonwealth of Kentucky
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Kentucky’s 14.25% excise tax on prediction market transaction fees is preempted by exclusive CFTC jurisdiction over exchange-traded derivatives.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date.
- Verification
- Primary docket or order is not linked; party names and procedural details remain source-incomplete.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
- Relationship
- Federal action
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico
- Filed
- June 12, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 12, 2026
- Plaintiff
- United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Defendant
- State of New Mexico; Michelle Lujan Grisham; Raúl Torrez; Patrick Garrett; Indy White; Van Billops; Mekko Miller
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether New Mexico may apply state gaming law to a federally regulated exchange after suing Kalshi in state court.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date.
Source: official CFTC release and filed complaint
Court record: D.N.M. No. 1:26-cv-01912
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court (New York)
- Filed
- June 12, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 12, 2026
- Plaintiff
- North American Derivatives Exchange (Nadex), a Crypto.com company
- Defendant
- Attorney General Letitia James; New York State Gaming Commission
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether federal law overrides New York gambling rules as applied to contracts traded on a CFTC-regulated exchange.
- Latest material ruling
- Nadex seeks a declaratory judgment, citing New York’s existing suits against Gemini and Coinbase as evidence that enforcement could follow. No ruling to date.
- Verification
- The complaint/docket is not linked; the CFTC New York material is related background, not this complaint.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
- Relationship
- Federal action
- Court
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
- Filed
- April 28, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 10, 2026
- Plaintiff
- United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Defendant
- State of Wisconsin; Tony Evers; Josh Kaul; Wisconsin Department of Administration Division of Gaming; John Dillett
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Wisconsin may apply its sports betting statutes to five federally registered platforms and their distribution partners.
- Latest material ruling
- No merits ruling. Wisconsin moved for a preliminary injunction against the platforms in June 2026.
Source: official CFTC release and filed complaint
Court record: E.D. Wis. No. 2:26-cv-00749
- Relationship
- Duplicate platform view of Wisconsin v. Kalshi et al.
- Court
- Wisconsin Circuit Court; removed to W.D. Wisconsin
- Filed
- April 23, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 10, 2026
- Plaintiff
- State of Wisconsin, by Attorney General Joshua L. Kaul
- Defendant
- Coinbase Global, Inc.; Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc.; Kalshi, Inc.; KalshiEX LLC; Kalshi Klear, Inc.; Kalshi Klear, LLC; Kalshi Trading, LLC; Robinhood Derivatives, LLC; Robinhood Securities, LLC
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether the platforms are facilitating illegal sports betting in violation of Wisconsin gambling law.
- Latest material ruling
- Wisconsin asked the court on June 10, 2026 to temporarily block sports event contract trading on Coinbase, Kalshi and Robinhood, describing the activity as repeated and ongoing violations of state law. No ruling to date.
- Verification
- The state and removed federal dockets are identified in the linked complaint; the later June 10 preliminary-injunction motion itself is not linked.
Source: official CFTC release and federal complaint identifying the state case
Court records: Wis. Cir. Ct. No. 2026CV001284; W.D. Wis. No. 3:26-cv-00378
- Relationship
- Duplicate platform view of Wisconsin v. Kalshi et al.
- Court
- Wisconsin Circuit Court; removed to W.D. Wisconsin
- Filed
- April 23, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 10, 2026
- Plaintiff
- State of Wisconsin, by Attorney General Joshua L. Kaul
- Defendant
- Coinbase Global, Inc.; Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc.; Kalshi, Inc.; KalshiEX LLC; Kalshi Klear, Inc.; Kalshi Klear, LLC; Kalshi Trading, LLC; Robinhood Derivatives, LLC; Robinhood Securities, LLC
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether the platforms are facilitating illegal sports betting in violation of Wisconsin gambling law.
- Latest material ruling
- Wisconsin asked the court on June 10, 2026 to temporarily block sports event contract trading on Coinbase, Kalshi and Robinhood, describing the activity as repeated and ongoing violations of state law. No ruling to date.
- Verification
- The state and removed federal dockets are identified in the linked complaint; the later June 10 preliminary-injunction motion itself is not linked.
Source: official CFTC release and federal complaint identifying the state case
Court records: Wis. Cir. Ct. No. 2026CV001284; W.D. Wis. No. 3:26-cv-00378
- Relationship
- Duplicate platform view of Wisconsin v. Kalshi et al.
- Court
- Wisconsin Circuit Court; removed to W.D. Wisconsin
- Filed
- April 23, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 10, 2026
- Plaintiff
- State of Wisconsin, by Attorney General Joshua L. Kaul
- Defendant
- Coinbase Global, Inc.; Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc.; Kalshi, Inc.; KalshiEX LLC; Kalshi Klear, Inc.; Kalshi Klear, LLC; Kalshi Trading, LLC; Robinhood Derivatives, LLC; Robinhood Securities, LLC
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether the platforms are facilitating illegal sports betting in violation of Wisconsin gambling law.
- Latest material ruling
- Wisconsin asked the court on June 10, 2026 to temporarily block sports event contract trading on Coinbase, Kalshi and Robinhood, describing the activity as repeated and ongoing violations of state law. No ruling to date.
- Verification
- The state and removed federal dockets are identified in the linked complaint; the later June 10 preliminary-injunction motion itself is not linked.
Source: official CFTC release and federal complaint identifying the state case
Court records: Wis. Cir. Ct. No. 2026CV001284; W.D. Wis. No. 3:26-cv-00378
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe County, New Mexico
- Filed
- June 4, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 8, 2026
- Plaintiff
- State of New Mexico, by Attorney General Raúl Torrez
- Defendant
- Kalshi, Inc.; KalshiEX LLC
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Kalshi is illegally offering online sports betting in New Mexico through sports event contracts.
- Latest material ruling
- No merits ruling. Kalshi removed the case to federal court; New Mexico is expected to seek remand. Four New Mexico tribes and pueblos filed a separate federal suit on May 12, 2026 alleging violations of gaming compacts.
Source: official CFTC release and federal complaint identifying the state case
Court record: N.M. 1st Jud. Dist. No. D-101-CV-2026-01567
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- Administrative — Illinois Gaming Board
- Filed
- 2026 (first quarter)
- Last court activity
- June 2026
- Issuing authority
- Illinois Gaming Board
- Order recipients
- Multiple platforms, including KalshiEX LLC
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether prediction market platforms must hold an Illinois license and pay state gaming tax, or be treated as illegal operators.
- Latest material ruling
- Enforcement is blocked while the federal preemption case proceeds. Illinois subsequently enacted a licensing-and-tax framework, which Kalshi challenged in June 2026.
- Verification
- The administrative orders and related state record are not linked; the current source is background reporting.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court (Illinois)
- Filed
- June 2026
- Last court activity
- June 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- State of Illinois; Illinois Gaming Board
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Illinois may require state licensing and impose gaming tax on a CFTC-registered exchange.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date.
- Verification
- Primary docket or order is not linked; party names and procedural details remain source-incomplete.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court (Michigan)
- Filed
- March 4, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 2026
- Plaintiff
- Polymarket entity not identified in linked material
- Defendant
- Attorney General Dana Nessel
- Appeal status
- None recorded
- Core legal question
- Whether Michigan gaming law is preempted as applied to Polymarket’s event contracts.
- Latest material ruling
- The court denied Polymarket’s preliminary injunction in June 2026, finding no clear congressional statement that federal derivatives law supersedes the state’s traditional role in regulating gambling. Ohio filed the decision as supplemental authority in the Sixth Circuit.
- Verification
- Primary docket or order is not linked; party names and procedural details remain source-incomplete.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
- Relationship
- Platform view of the removed Rhode Island state proceeding
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island
- Filed
- June 2026
- Last court activity
- June 2026
- Plaintiff
- QCX, LLC
- Defendant
- Rhode Island Attorney General
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Rhode Island’s enforcement action against Polymarket is preempted by the CEA.
- Latest material ruling
- Motion filed June 2026. No ruling to date.
- Verification
- The linked federal pleading identifies QCX, LLC and the removed case, but the later preliminary-injunction motion itself is not linked.
Source: official CFTC release and proposed complaint
Court record: D.R.I. No. 1:26-cv-00333
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court (Ohio)
- Filed
- 2026
- Last court activity
- June 2026
- Plaintiff
- Polymarket entity not identified in linked material
- Defendant
- Ohio Casino Control Commission
- Appeal status
- None recorded
- Core legal question
- Whether Ohio may enforce state gaming law against Polymarket’s event contracts.
- Latest material ruling
- Preliminary injunction denied in June 2026.
- Verification
- Primary docket or order is not linked; party names and procedural details remain source-incomplete.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
- Relationship
- Tribal claim
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico
- Filed
- May 12, 2026
- Last court activity
- June 2026
- Plaintiff
- Mescalero Apache Tribe; Pueblo of Pojoaque; Pueblo of Sandia; Pueblo of Isleta
- Defendant
- KalshiEX LLC
- Venue state
- New Mexico
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Kalshi enables sports gambling on tribal land in violation of gaming compacts and IGRA. The coalition’s argument rests on federal Indian gaming law rather than New Mexico’s gambling statutes.
- Latest material ruling
- Kalshi moved to dismiss in June 2026, arguing the tribes lack regulatory authority over non-members and that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts their claims. No ruling to date. The suit runs alongside, but is legally separate from, the New Mexico Attorney General’s state-court action.
- Verification
- No primary docket or complaint is linked for the four-tribe federal action; the linked article concerns the separate state enforcement matter.
- Relationship
- Proposed federal intervention
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island
- Filed
- May 28, 2026
- Last court activity
- May 28, 2026
- Proposed plaintiff-intervenors
- United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Defendant
- Mark Furcolo; Peter F. Neronha; Christina Tobiasz
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Rhode Island’s suit against two operators intrudes on the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over exchange-traded event contracts.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date.
Source: official CFTC release and proposed complaint
Court record: D.R.I. No. 1:26-cv-00327
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- First Judicial District Court, Carson City, Nevada
- Filed
- January 19, 2026
- Last court activity
- May 21, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Nevada Gaming Control Board
- Defendant
- Blockratize, Inc. (Polymarket)
- Appeal status
- On appeal, Ninth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether Polymarket’s event contracts amount to unlicensed wagering in Nevada.
- Latest material ruling
- Polymarket stopped offering event contracts in Nevada on January 31, 2026 following a court ruling. The Ninth Circuit denied a stay of district court proceedings on May 21, 2026.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: D. Nev. No. 3:26-cv-00089; 9th Cir. No. 26-1343
- Relationship
- Duplicate platform view of one Rhode Island state proceeding
- Court
- Rhode Island state court
- Filed
- May 21, 2026
- Last court activity
- May 21, 2026
- Petitioner
- State of Rhode Island, by Attorney General Peter F. Neronha
- Respondent
- KalshiEX LLC; QCX, LLC
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether the platforms operate illegal gaming that circumvents state gambling regulation and undercuts state sports betting and lottery revenue.
- Latest material ruling
- No rulings to date. The United States and CFTC moved to intervene in the related federal challenge on May 28, 2026.
Source: official CFTC release and federal pleading identifying the state case
Court records: R.I. Super. Ct. C.A. No. PC-2026-02753; D.R.I. No. 1:26-cv-00333
- Relationship
- Duplicate platform view of one Rhode Island state proceeding
- Court
- Rhode Island state court
- Filed
- May 21, 2026
- Last court activity
- May 21, 2026
- Petitioner
- State of Rhode Island, by Attorney General Peter F. Neronha
- Respondent
- KalshiEX LLC; QCX, LLC
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether the platforms operate illegal gaming that circumvents state gambling regulation and undercuts state sports betting and lottery revenue.
- Latest material ruling
- No rulings to date. The United States and CFTC moved to intervene in the related federal challenge on May 28, 2026.
Source: official CFTC release and federal pleading identifying the state case
Court records: R.I. Super. Ct. C.A. No. PC-2026-02753; D.R.I. No. 1:26-cv-00333
- Relationship
- Duplicate platform view of the consolidated Nevada appeal
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (from D. Nev.)
- Filed
- 2026
- Last court activity
- May 21, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- Nevada Gaming Control Board
- Appeal status
- Decision pending, Ninth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether sports event contracts fall within the CEA definition of swaps and displace Nevada gaming authority.
- Latest material ruling
- The district court ruled against the operators, finding sports event contracts are not swaps. Consolidated oral argument was heard April 16, 2026. The panel denied stays of district court proceedings on May 21, 2026. No decision as of August 26, 2026.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: D. Nev. No. 2:26-cv-00406; 9th Cir. No. 26-1304
- Relationship
- Duplicate platform view of the consolidated Nevada appeal
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (from D. Nev.)
- Filed
- 2026
- Last court activity
- May 21, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- Nevada Gaming Control Board
- Appeal status
- Decision pending, Ninth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether sports event contracts fall within the CEA definition of swaps and displace Nevada gaming authority.
- Latest material ruling
- The district court ruled against the operators, finding sports event contracts are not swaps. Consolidated oral argument was heard April 16, 2026. The panel denied stays of district court proceedings on May 21, 2026. No decision as of August 26, 2026.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: D. Nev. No. 2:26-cv-00406; 9th Cir. No. 26-1304
- Relationship
- Duplicate platform view of the consolidated Nevada appeal
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (from D. Nev.)
- Filed
- 2026
- Last court activity
- May 21, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- Nevada Gaming Control Board
- Appeal status
- Decision pending, Ninth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether sports event contracts fall within the CEA definition of swaps and displace Nevada gaming authority.
- Latest material ruling
- The district court ruled against the operators, finding sports event contracts are not swaps. Consolidated oral argument was heard April 16, 2026. The panel denied stays of district court proceedings on May 21, 2026. No decision as of August 26, 2026.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: D. Nev. No. 2:26-cv-00406; 9th Cir. No. 26-1304
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Filed
- 2026
- Last court activity
- May 21, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Blockratize, Inc. (Polymarket), appellant
- Defendant
- Nevada Gaming Control Board
- Appeal status
- Decision pending, Ninth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether federal derivatives law displaces Nevada’s authority over Polymarket’s event contracts.
- Latest material ruling
- The Ninth Circuit denied Polymarket’s motion to stay district court proceedings pending appeal on May 21, 2026.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: D. Nev. No. 3:26-cv-00089; 9th Cir. No. 26-1343
- Relationship
- Federal action
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- Filed
- May 12, 2026
- Last court activity
- May 12, 2026
- Amicus
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission, supporting Kalshi
- Parties
- KalshiEx LLC; Matthew T. Schuler et al.
- Appeal status
- Appeal argued, Sixth Circuit No. 26-3196
- Core legal question
- Whether the district court read the CFTC’s jurisdiction over event contracts too narrowly.
- Latest material ruling
- Brief filed. No ruling on the appeal to date.
Source: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Read the official release and amicus brief. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: 6th Cir. No. 26-3196
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- Administrative — Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency; on appeal to the Fourth Circuit
- Filed
- April 2025
- Last court activity
- May 7, 2026
- Issuing authority
- Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency
- Order recipient
- KalshiEX LLC
- Appeal status
- Decision pending, Fourth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether Kalshi’s event contracts are indistinguishable from sports bets requiring a Maryland license.
- Latest material ruling
- Maryland broke the early trend favoring federal authority at the district level. The Fourth Circuit heard oral argument on May 7, 2026. No decision as of August 26, 2026. Baltimore separately sued Kalshi, Polymarket and three distribution partners under the city consumer protection ordinance on August 13, 2026.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: D. Md. No. 1:25-cv-01283 (Kalshi v. Martin); 4th Cir. No. 25-1892
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (from D. Md.)
- Filed
- August 1, 2025
- Last court activity
- May 7, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- John Martin, Director, Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency
- Appeal status
- Decision pending, Fourth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether the CEA preempts Maryland’s cease-and-desist order against Kalshi’s sports event contracts.
- Latest material ruling
- Maryland prevailed at the district level. The Fourth Circuit heard oral argument on May 7, 2026. No decision as of August 26, 2026.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: D. Md. No. 1:25-cv-01283 (Kalshi v. Martin); 4th Cir. No. 25-1892
- Relationship
- Federal action
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of Arizona
- Filed
- April 2, 2026
- Last court activity
- May 5, 2026
- Plaintiff
- United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Defendant
- State of Arizona; Katie Hobbs; Arizona Department of Gaming; Kris Mayes; Jackie Johnson; Douglas Jensen
- Appeal status
- State appeal pending, Ninth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether the Commodity Exchange Act strips a state of authority to bring criminal gambling charges against a CFTC-designated contract market.
- Latest material ruling
- Temporary restraining order granted April 10, 2026, converted to a permanent injunction on May 5, 2026 — the first district-level merits ruling holding that federal law preempts state gambling statutes as applied to CFTC-regulated exchanges.
- Verification
- The linked order establishes the April 10 temporary restraining order; the May 5 permanent-injunction order is not linked in this card.
Source: official CFTC release and temporary restraining order
Court record: D. Ariz. No. 2:26-cv-01715-MTL
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- Arizona state court (Maricopa County)
- Filed
- March 17, 2026
- Last court activity
- May 5, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Attorney General Kris Mayes
- Defendant
- KalshiEX LLC; Kalshi Trading LLC
- Appeal status
- State appeal pending, Ninth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether operating an unlicensed sports and election contract market is a criminal gambling offense under Arizona law.
- Latest material ruling
- The misdemeanor counts carry penalties of up to $20,000 per sports contract and $10,000 per election contract. A federal court blocked prosecution — TRO on April 10, 2026, made permanent on May 5, 2026. The charges have not been adjudicated.
- Verification
- The linked federal order identifies the related prosecution but does not supply a Maricopa County case number for the 20-count state information.
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- Massachusetts state court; parallel federal action D. Mass.
- Filed
- September 12, 2025
- Last court activity
- May 4, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell
- Defendant
- KalshiEX LLC
- Appeal status
- Pending before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; injunction stayed pending appeal
- Core legal question
- Whether the Commonwealth can bar sports event contracts under state gaming law. Massachusetts was the first state to sue rather than wait to be sued.
- Latest material ruling
- Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Christopher Barry-Smith granted a preliminary injunction on January 20, 2026 allowing the state to bar Kalshi’s sports event contracts. An appellate stay allowed Kalshi to remain operational while review proceeded. The Supreme Judicial Court heard Commonwealth v. Kalshi on May 4, 2026 and has not yet ruled. The CFTC filed an amicus brief supporting Kalshi in the state-court litigation.
- Verification
- The trial-court order and CFTC SJC filing are linked; the later appellate stay order is not linked in this card.
Sources: official preliminary-injunction order; official CFTC SJC filing
Court record: Mass. Super. Ct. No. 2584CV02525; Mass. SJC No. SJC-13906; D. Mass. No. 1:25-cv-12595
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island
- Filed
- May 2026
- Last court activity
- May 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- Mark Furcolo; Peter F. Neronha; Christina Tobiasz
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Rhode Island may treat Kalshi’s event contracts as illegal gaming.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date. Tribal gaming organizations have sought to join the litigation.
Source: official CFTC release and proposed federal pleading
Court record: D.R.I. No. 1:26-cv-00327
- Relationship
- Tribal claim
- Court
- U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin
- Filed
- August 20, 2025
- Last court activity
- May 2026
- Plaintiff
- Ho-Chunk Nation
- Defendant
- KalshiEX LLC
- Venue state
- Wisconsin
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether sports event contracts traded on tribal lands violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and infringe tribal sovereignty over gaming.
- Latest material ruling
- The court denied Kalshi’s motion to dismiss in May 2026, allowing the Ho-Chunk Nation’s IGRA claims to proceed to the merits. This is the furthest any tribal challenge has advanced. The filing preceded and runs parallel to Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul’s separate state action.
Source: May 2026 federal order
Court record: W.D. Wis. No. 3:25-cv-00698
- Relationship
- Federal action
- Court
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Filed
- April 24, 2026
- Last court activity
- April 24, 2026
- Amicus
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Parties
- Commonwealth of Massachusetts; KalshiEx LLC
- Appeal status
- Pending before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Core legal question
- Whether the Commodity Exchange Act preempts Massachusetts gaming law as applied to CFTC-regulated event contracts.
- Latest material filing
- The CFTC filed an amicus brief arguing that Congress gave it exclusive jurisdiction over commodity derivatives markets, including event-contract prediction markets.
Source: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Read the official release and filed brief. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: Mass. SJC No. SJC-13906
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- New York state court
- Filed
- April 21, 2026
- Last court activity
- April 21, 2026
- Petitioner
- People of the State of New York, by Attorney General Letitia James
- Respondent
- Gemini Titan, LLC
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Gemini’s prediction market product is an unlicensed gambling operation under New York law.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date.
Source: verified petition
Court record: N.Y. Cnty. Sup. Ct. Index No. 451603/2026
- Relationship
- Federal action
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Filed
- 2026 (first quarter)
- Last court activity
- April 16, 2026
- Amicus
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission, supporting the operators
- Parties
- KalshiEX LLC; Blockratize, Inc.; Nevada gaming authorities
- Appeal status
- Decision pending, Ninth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether sports event contracts are swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and therefore beyond Nevada’s gaming authority.
- Latest material ruling
- Argued April 16, 2026. No decision issued as of August 26, 2026.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: Consolidated appeals incl. Nos. 26-1304, 26-1343
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of Arizona
- Filed
- March 12, 2026
- Last court activity
- April 9, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- Arizona gaming and law enforcement officials
- Appeal status
- Related federal injunction on appeal, Ninth Circuit
- Core legal question
- Whether Arizona may pursue criminal gambling charges against a federally registered exchange.
- Latest material ruling
- Judge Michael Liburdi denied Kalshi’s preliminary injunction on April 9, 2026. One day later the CFTC obtained a TRO in its own suit, made permanent on May 5, 2026, which blocks the prosecution.
- Verification
- The separate Kalshi Arizona complaint/docket is not linked; the CFTC source covers the related federal enforcement order.
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Court
- Administrative — NJ Division of Gaming Enforcement
- Filed
- 2025
- Last court activity
- April 6, 2026
- Issuing authority
- New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement
- Order recipient
- KalshiEX LLC
- Appeal status
- Preliminary injunction affirmed; case remanded for merits
- Core legal question
- Whether New Jersey gambling law reaches sports event contracts listed on a designated contract market.
- Latest material ruling
- Enforcement is blocked. The district court enjoined the state and the Third Circuit affirmed on April 6, 2026 in a 2-1 decision.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: case fileD.N.J. No. 1:25-cv-02152; 3d Cir. No. 25-1922
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (from D.N.J.)
- Filed
- 2025
- Last court activity
- April 6, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- Marlene Caride; David Rebuck; New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement; Matthew J. Platkin
- Appeal status
- First federal appellate ruling on the question
- Core legal question
- Whether sports event contracts are swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, and whether the CEA preempts New Jersey gambling law as applied to them.
- Latest material ruling
- On April 6, 2026 a divided panel affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction, holding Kalshi showed a reasonable likelihood of success on field and conflict preemption. This is a preliminary injunction affirmance, not a merits judgment. The case returns to the district court.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: case fileD.N.J. No. 1:25-cv-02152; 3d Cir. No. 25-1922
- Relationship
- State enforcement
- Authority
- Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission
- Filed
- 2025
- Last administrative activity
- 2025; exact order date not supplied
- Issuing authority
- Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission
- Order recipient
- KalshiEX LLC
- Appeal status
- None identified
- Core legal question
- Whether sports event contracts require an Iowa gaming license.
- Latest material action
- The Commission issued a cease-and-desist order in 2025. Kalshi’s separate federal lawsuit, filed March 14, 2026, is tracked in its own card. The Iowa Senate’s April 4, 2026 bill action was legislative activity, not court or administrative-docket activity.
- Verification
- The cease-and-desist order and docket are not linked; the page retains only secondary background for this record.
Source: DeFi Rate profile. Read the background report. Last checked August 26, 2026. The underlying administrative order is not linked.
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court (Washington)
- Filed
- April 1, 2026
- Last court activity
- April 1, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Robinhood Derivatives, LLC
- Defendant
- State of Washington
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Washington may enforce state gambling law against a CFTC-registered futures commission merchant offering event contracts.
- Latest material ruling
- Filed pre-emptively, before the state acted against Robinhood. No ruling to date.
- Verification
- Primary docket or order is not linked; party names and procedural details remain source-incomplete.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court (Iowa)
- Filed
- March 14, 2026
- Last court activity
- March 14, 2026
- Plaintiff
- KalshiEX LLC
- Defendant
- Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Iowa gaming regulators may enforce licensing requirements against a designated contract market.
- Latest material ruling
- No ruling to date.
- Verification
- Primary docket or order is not linked; party names and procedural details remain source-incomplete.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
- Relationship
- Platform challenge
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
- Filed
- February 9, 2026
- Last court activity
- February 9, 2026
- Plaintiff
- Polymarket entity not identified in linked material
- Defendant
- Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell
- Appeal status
- None
- Core legal question
- Whether Massachusetts has authority to ban sports event contracts offered on federally regulated venues.
- Latest material ruling
- No merits ruling to date.
- Verification
- The card previously cited only a related Massachusetts matter; the complaint/docket for this challenge is not linked.
Source: DeFi Rate. Read the full report. Last checked August 26, 2026.
Court record: D. Mass. — related to No. 2584CV02525
Sources: linked federal and state court records, CFTC filings, state regulators and attorney general offices. Relationship cards retained for filtering are labeled as duplicate views; entries without a linked primary record are marked source-incomplete. Last updated August 26, 2026.
Path to the Supreme Court
One appellate ruling away from a circuit split
New Jersey lost at the Third Circuit in April and has been trying to get the Supreme Court to look at it ever since. The state has not filed its petition yet, and it is waiting on purpose: four more appeals courts are sitting on the same question, and a single ruling against Kalshi would hand New Jersey the conflict the Court usually wants before it takes a case.
District courts reached opposite answers on identical facts
The two questions are whether sports event contracts are swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, and whether the Act preempts state gambling law. District judges have answered both ways. Tennessee granted Kalshi a preliminary injunction on February 20, 2026 on the basis that the contracts are likely swaps. Ohio denied one on March 10 holding they are not. In June the Western District of Michigan found they are likely not swaps and that no preemption theory applies.
Conflicting district rulings do not create a circuit split. They establish that the question is genuinely contested, which is the groundwork for one.
Source: DeFi Rate case records. Litigation tracker.
The Third Circuit ruled for Kalshi, 2–1
KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty, No. 25-1922, argued September 10, 2025 and decided April 6, 2026. Judge David Porter wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Judge Michael Chagares, holding that the contracts are swaps and that both field and conflict preemption shield them from New Jersey’s gambling laws. Judge Jane Roth dissented, writing that the products are virtually indistinguishable from what online sportsbooks offer.
It affirmed a preliminary injunction rather than deciding the merits. The split panel is part of why the case is considered a plausible vehicle: the Supreme Court took Murphy v. NCAA out of the same circuit, also over a divided opinion.
Source: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Read the opinion.
New Jersey has not filed its petition yet
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum applied for more time on June 26, and the case was docketed at the Supreme Court on June 30 as Flaherty v. KalshiEX, application No. 25A1465. Justice Alito granted an extension to August 4 — shorter than the September 3 the state asked for. New Jersey filed a second application on July 22 seeking September 3 again.
The state told the Court why it wanted more time: imminent rulings from the Fourth or Ninth Circuits, or the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, could inform a petition. The official docket records Justice Alito’s first extension to August 4 and New Jersey’s July 22 request for a further extension to September 3. As of August 26, the docket shows no disposition of the second request and no petition for certiorari. June 30 was the application docketing date, not the start of a certiorari clock.
Source: Supreme Court of the United States. Read the extension application.
Four circuits could create the split
The Third Circuit stands alone. Any one of the four courts below ruling for the states would put a federal appellate court in direct conflict with it, which is the condition the Supreme Court looks for.
The Sixth Circuit has drawn the most attention: the consolidated Ohio and Tennessee appeals have the CFTC as an active party and a 39-state amicus coalition behind them. At the Ninth Circuit argument in April, the panel appeared unpersuaded by the operators.
Source: circuit dockets and argument reporting. Fortune, August 21, 2026.
What has to happen for the Court to rule
A petition has to be filed. The other side responds. Four justices have to vote to grant certiorari. Only then comes briefing, argument and a decision — a sequence that normally runs a year or more from petition to opinion.
Prediction market traders have put roughly a 64% chance on the Court accepting a sports event contract case by the end of 2026. Those traders are pricing whether the Court takes a case. How it would rule is a separate question nobody is quoting.
Source: prediction market pricing, reported July 2026. Treat as sentiment rather than a forecast of the ruling.
Appeals courts holding the same question
Sources: federal appellate opinions, the Supreme Court docket, and DeFi Rate’s litigation tracker. Dates reflect the docket as of August 26, 2026; the certiorari deadline is subject to a pending extension request. Last updated August 26, 2026.
The arguments
Where the disagreements sit
A federal judge in Tennessee found that sports event contracts are likely swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act in February, while an Ohio judge found they are not. Both sit in the Sixth Circuit, reading the same statute. The sources below are arguing five separate questions rather than one.
Legal questions
- Does the Commodity Exchange Act’s purpose test even reach event contracts?Beylin says event contracts serve neither hedging nor price discovery, so state law still reaches them. Kurtz agrees the statute is contradictory but would narrow the CFTC’s power to shut the markets down rather than widen state power over them.2 sources →
- Should one regulator own this, or two?The litigation is being fought as a binary one side has to win. These three papers argue the answer is a role for both levels of government, or a test based on what a contract does rather than where it is listed.3 sources →
- Does tribal authority survive a platform’s CFTC registration?Tribes argue Class III gaming status under IGRA survives a platform’s CFTC registration. Kalshi argues tribal authority does not reach non-members and the Commodity Exchange Act preempts the claim entirely.1 source →
- Are sports contracts a different problem from the rest?Leagues, the NCAA and the player unions say the safeguards that govern sportsbooks are absent here: no integrity-monitoring duty, no age floor of 21, no restrictions on player props. Platforms point to surveillance and insider screening, and the CFTC’s June 2026 proposal would treat injury, officiating and pre-collegiate contracts differently from aggregate outcomes.9 sources →
- How well do the prices forecast?One survey finds prediction markets forecast well. One trade-level analysis finds pricing breaks down near expiry. They examine different things, which is why both can be right.2 sources →
Question 1 of 5All legal questions
Does the Commodity Exchange Act’s purpose test even reach event contracts?
Says no for many event contracts: they advance neither hedging nor price discovery, so state law — including gambling law — remains available.
Finds the governing law contradictory but argues the public benefit is real, and would narrow the CFTC’s authority to shut these markets down rather than expand state power over them.
Question 2 of 5All legal questions
Should one regulator own this, or two?
Reads the migration of sports wagering into federally regulated contracts as regulatory arbitrage, and argues the answer is a role for both levels of government rather than a winner.
Argues the regulatory question should turn on what a contract does, not where it is listed: hedging and information markets and recreational sports contracts need not be treated alike.
Questions the investing-versus-gambling line itself, arguing current products expose the two-regime model as unable to sort them.
Question 3 of 5All legal questions
Does tribal authority survive a platform’s CFTC registration?
Argues sports-related prediction contracts offered on Indian lands can constitute Class III gaming under IGRA even where they also qualify as CEA instruments — the two characterizations are not mutually exclusive.
Question 4 of 5All legal questions
Are sports contracts a different problem from the rest?
Went directly to Kalshi and Polymarket rather than through the CFTC, asking them to stop listing contracts that can be easily manipulated or determined in advance. Has since pressed the CFTC for a minimum trading age of 21, restrictions on player props and officiating contracts, and cross-platform lists of barred individuals.
Argues leagues are best positioned to identify which markets pose outsized integrity risk, and asks the CFTC to require exchanges to block athletes, officials and team personnel using league-supplied lists, plus know-your-customer rules so sports contracts cannot be traded anonymously.
Asks the CFTC for an interim suspension of college contracts, arguing they resemble unregulated wagering without age limits, advertising rules, integrity monitoring or prop restrictions. Cites more than 1,500 gambling-related abusive messages to student-athletes since 2024, a criminal investigation touching 17 schools and roughly 40 athletes, and roughly $2 billion in prediction market volume around the 2026 tournaments that it has no mechanism to police.
Focuses on harassment rather than legality, reporting that members and their families face increased threatening and abusive behavior from gamblers. Asks for anti-harassment measures and restrictions on contracts tied to individual athletes.
Signed the first agreement of its kind between a sports league and the CFTC, committing both sides to share integrity information and meet regularly on markets that could be easy to manipulate. Commissioner Rob Manfred framed it as setting clear boundaries while keeping fan engagement. In its July rulemaking comment MLB argued the framework should also cover contracts that do not settle on what happens in a game, naming markets on an athlete’s personal affairs, team personnel decisions and press conference remarks.
States that consumer protections and public health safeguards have not kept pace with the behavioral risks these products create, and asks operators to promote the National Problem Gambling Helpline prominently and continuously.
Describes prediction markets as a new form of gambling under a different label, and warns of harm to sports and lottery integrity, responsible gaming programs, public benefit funding and law enforcement efforts on tax evasion and money laundering. Cites a World Lottery Association paper calling the products unlicensed betting by another name.
Argues most of these contracts are unlawful under the CEA, that the CFTC is not equipped to police nationwide gambling, and that the 2018 Supreme Court decision left sports betting to the states rather than to a federal derivatives regulator.
Backs the CFTC’s contract-by-contract review and its distinction between mainstream and micro markets, and argues regulated exchanges are preferable to offshore platforms. Chief executive Tarek Mansour has gone further in public, saying markets on individual plays are harder to police for integrity and that he was surprised states permitted them for as long as they did, and that federal review lets a problem market be stopped once rather than in forty separate states.
Holden, Turk and Edelman treat sports as a regulatory arbitrage problem in Question 2. Moshrefi’s Kalshi trade analysis is in Question 5.
Question 5 of 5All legal questions
How well do the prices forecast?
Finds that prediction markets aggregate dispersed information effectively and can produce forecasts that outperform moderately sophisticated alternatives.
Roughly 23 million Kalshi sports trades show calibration breaking down near expiry and combos priced above fair value — evidence against reading every quoted price as a clean probability.
Law firm analysis
These document what the courts and the CFTC have done rather than argue for an outcome.
The federal-state jurisdiction fight, CFTC rulemaking, appellate litigation and recent state wins, in one place.
How state AGs are coordinating to preserve state gambling authority, including CFTC submissions and enforcement.
Close reading of KalshiEX v. Flaherty, including the majority’s swap analysis and why the split panel matters.
Connects the Third Circuit ruling to the United States and CFTC suits against states, and to the competing field- and conflict-preemption theories.
Documents federal and state courts reaching opposite results, with the strongest form of each argument.
The CEA and CFTC framework plus settlement, information integrity, manipulation and compliance risk.
Breaks down the proposed public-interest framework and how the CFTC would treat sports event contracts.
Every source is linked individually. DeFi Rate does not endorse the positions listed; they are here to show the range of the argument. Last updated August 25, 2026.
