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.

States involved19
Federal lawsuit records9
State-action records28
Tribal relationship records4
Platform relationship records27
Records with appeal activity30

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.

Filtered to one party.
Federal
States and tribes
Tribal nations
Platforms
Federal actionCFTC suit, amicus brief or emergency order against a state
State enforcementSuit, criminal charge, cease-and-desist or administrative penalty
Tribal claimSuit by a tribal nation under federal Indian gaming law, not state gambling law
Platform challengeOperator suit against a state regulator or state law

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.

Source: related CFTC New Mexico background

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.

Source: related New Mexico background only

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.

Source: official CFTC release and federal order

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.

Source: official CFTC release — related federal 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.

Complete

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.

Complete

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.

Where it stands

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.

Pending

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.

Not yet

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

SixthOhio and Tennessee, consolidated. CFTC an active party.Argued July 30
NinthNevada, consolidated with Robinhood and Crypto.com.Argued April 16
FourthMaryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission.Argued May 7
SecondNew York and Connecticut, both after adverse rulings.Briefing

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

  1. 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  →
  2. 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  →
  3. 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  →
  4. 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  →
  5. 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?

State authority Event Contracts Are a Step Too Far for Derivatives Regulation Ilya Beylin, Seton Hall Law School University of Chicago Business Law Review, 2025

Says no for many event contracts: they advance neither hedging nor price discovery, so state law — including gambling law — remains available.

Market scope Political Prediction Markets: Bad Law, but Good Policy? Alexander Kurtz Boston College Law Review, February 26, 2026

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?

Concurrent or functional Regulating Sports Prediction Markets John T. Holden, Matthew C. Turk & Marc Edelman University of Illinois Law Review, forthcoming 2026

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.

Concurrent or functional Should the Rules Be Different When Prediction Markets Play Sportsbook? David Krause, Marquette University CLS Blue Sky Blog, August 18, 2026

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.

Concurrent or functional Betting on Everything Karl Lockhart, DePaul University College of Law Boston College Law Review, October 31, 2025

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?

Tribal authority How Indian Law Can Take On Prediction Market Giants Czar Sepe, University of Pennsylvania Law School SSRN working paper, April 24, 2026

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?

Letters asking the exchanges to drop manipulation-prone markets

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.

Comment letter on league authority over market approval

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.

Request to suspend collegiate prediction market contracts

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.

Joint letter from five players associations on athlete safety

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.

First memorandum of understanding between a league and the CFTC

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.

Consumer protections for prediction market event contracts

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.

Prediction markets should face gambling regulation

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.

Prediction markets, gambling, the CFTC and regulation

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.

Kalshi’s position in the sports rulemaking docket

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 the forecasts hold up Prediction Markets Justin Wolfers & Eric Zitzewitz Journal of Economic Perspectives, Spring 2004

Finds that prediction markets aggregate dispersed information effectively and can produce forecasts that outperform moderately sophisticated alternatives.

Finds pricing breaks down near expiry Prices, Probabilities, and Parlays: Systematic Bias in Sports Prediction Markets Niusha Moshrefi arXiv preprint, July 15, 2026

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.

Legal landscape Sports and Gaming Law in the First Half of 2026: Top Five Developments WilmerHale Client alert · August 13, 2026

The federal-state jurisdiction fight, CFTC rulemaking, appellate litigation and recent state wins, in one place.

State authority The Rise of the State Attorneys General Gibson Dunn Client alert · July 16, 2026

How state AGs are coordinating to preserve state gambling authority, including CFTC submissions and enforcement.

Federal preemption A Divided Third Circuit Holds That the CFTC Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Sports-Related Event Contracts Paul, Weiss Client alert · April 6, 2026

Close reading of KalshiEX v. Flaherty, including the majority’s swap analysis and why the split panel matters.

Federal vs. state Prediction Markets at a Crossroads: Preemption, Enforcement and Rulemaking Norton Rose Fulbright Client alert · April 2026

Connects the Third Circuit ruling to the United States and CFTC suits against states, and to the competing field- and conflict-preemption theories.

Split courts Prediction Markets at a Crossroads: The Continued Jurisdictional Battle Over Event Contracts Holland & Knight Client alert · February 20, 2026

Documents federal and state courts reaching opposite results, with the strongest form of each argument.

Regulatory framework United States: Event Contracts and Prediction Markets Baker McKenzie Client alert · April 6, 2026

The CEA and CFTC framework plus settlement, information integrity, manipulation and compliance risk.

CFTC rulemaking CFTC Proposes New Rules for Event Contracts on Prediction Markets Greenberg Traurig Client alert · June 16, 2026

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.