DeFi RateApp Offers

Prediction Market Litigation Tracker The fight over sports contracts is headed to the Supreme Court

Federal appeals courts have split over whether states can regulate sports event contracts. Here is every U.S. case and regulatory action we track, with its docket and latest ruling.

Legal matters we track

122 lawsuits and 13 administrative or enforcement actions, in 28 states and DC.

Supreme Court petitions

New Jersey, Robinhood and, reportedly, Crypto.com’s exchange. None granted yet.

Latest activity

QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US v. James et al.: joint letter ordered; no stay or merits ruling.

Supreme Court

How the question got to the Supreme Court

Whether federal commodities law preempts state gambling law for sports event contracts.

  1. Courts divide2025–2026District courts reach opposite answers on whether sports contracts are swaps and whether federal law preempts state gambling law.
  2. First appellate rulingApril 6, 2026The Third Circuit rules 2–1 for Kalshi against New Jersey.
  3. Circuit splitAugust 28, 2026The Ninth Circuit rules against Kalshi in Nevada, 3–0.
  4. Petitions filedSep 2–11, 2026New Jersey, Robinhood and, reportedly, Crypto.com’s exchange ask the Supreme Court to decide.

Federal appeals courts considering sports event contracts
Third CircuitNew Jersey (KalshiEX v. Flaherty)Decided Apr 6, 2026: 2–1 for Kalshi
Ninth CircuitNevada (KalshiEX v. Assad)Decided Aug 28, 2026: 3–0 against Kalshi; rehearing petition pending
Sixth CircuitOhio and Tennessee, consolidated; CFTC a partyArgued Jul 30, 2026
Fourth CircuitMaryland Lottery and Gaming Control CommissionArgued May 7, 2026
Second CircuitNew York and ConnecticutBriefing

Appeals courts holding the same question. Opinions: Third Circuit · Ninth Circuit

Who’s suing whom

Who is bringing cases, and against whom

Every matter’s parties, from its record. Pick a relationship or a party to see its cases in the table below.

  • 122Unique lawsuits
  • 13Administrative or enforcement matters
  • 30Unique appellate dockets
  • 28States involvedplus DC
  • 71Primary source verified
Type of matter

Who brings cases against whom

A matter with several parties on a side counts once in each relationship it belongs to.

Parties

Federal regulators 2

States, DC and cities 22

Tribal nations 8

Platforms 12

Private plaintiffs and individuals 6

All cases

Every matter, most recent activity first

135 records: 122 lawsuits and 13 administrative or enforcement actions. Open a row for the latest activity, parties, docket and every source.

U.S. prediction market lawsuits and regulatory actions
StatusSources
QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US v. James et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

September 30, 2026: Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the parties in both related cases to confer and submit a joint letter within seven days addressing an initial status conference or a stay pending related Second Circuit appeals. The order did not grant a stay or decide the merits. Polymarket US filed this separate federal complaint on September 24 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against New York officials.

Brought by
Polymarket
Against
New York
As filed
QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US v. Letitia James and New York State Gaming Commission officials, in their official capacities
Docket
S.D.N.Y. No. 1:26-cv-08345 (RA)
Related dockets
Related removed state enforcement case: S.D.N.Y. No. 1:26-cv-08338 (RA)
Filed
September 24, 2026
Verification
Read the signed September 30 order, Doc. 26 in No. 1:26-cv-08345, naming both related cases. The filed complaint cover establishes the separate September 24 action.
Sources
September 30 signed order, Doc. 26, reproduced in Daniel Wallach's post (primary) ↗Official federal docket (PACER-gated) ↗Filed September 24 complaint cover, reproduced by Mick Bransfield ↗
New YorkSeptember 30, 2026Joint letter ordered; no stay or merits rulingSources›
Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York on behalf of the People of the State of New York v. QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket USState · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

September 30, 2026: Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the parties in both related cases to confer and submit a joint letter within seven days addressing an initial status conference or a stay pending related Second Circuit appeals. The order did not grant a stay or decide the merits. New York filed its civil enforcement petition on September 24, alleging violations of state gambling law; Polymarket US removed that action to federal court.

Brought by
New York
Against
Polymarket
Docket
S.D.N.Y. No. 1:26-cv-08338 (RA)
Related dockets
Related separate federal action: S.D.N.Y. No. 1:26-cv-08345 (RA)
Filed
September 24, 2026
Verification
Read the signed September 30 order bearing both case numbers and Judge Ronnie Abrams's signature. It requires a joint letter within seven days, not a stay or merits ruling.
Sources
September 30 signed order, reproduced in Daniel Wallach's post (primary) ↗New York attorney general's September 24 petition ↗Federal removal docket ↗
New YorkSeptember 30, 2026Joint letter ordered; no stay or merits rulingSources›
KalshiEX LLC v. Knudsen et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of Montana

Dismissed by stipulation; the court entered its Order Dismissing Case (Doc. 36) on September 21, 2026. Kalshi dropped its claims; Montana gambling regulators agreed not to enforce against its event contracts, with 30 days’ notice before any future action. Montana Lottery Commission claims dismissed with prejudice; Attorney General claims dismissed without prejudice.

Brought by
Kalshi
Against
Montana
Docket
D. Mont. No. 6:26-cv-00028
Verification
Primary docket verified 2026-09-21.
Source
Primary docket, filed document or official order ↗
MontanaSeptember 21, 2026Dismissed by joint stipulation (court order entered)Sources›
Missouri attorney general prediction-market cease-and-desist lettersState · Missouri Attorney General

On Sept. 16–17, 2026, the attorney general directed six operators to comply with Missouri sports-wagering licensing, tax and age rules or cease Missouri sports-event contracts, with confirmation due within 30 days. No lawsuit, operator response or adjudicatory ruling has been verified.

Brought by
Missouri
Against
Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, Crypto.com, Novig, Underdog
Issued by
Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway to KalshiEX LLC; QCX Limited Liability Company; Foris DAX, Inc.; Robinhood Derivatives, LLC; Ludlow Exchange, LLC; Underdog Sports Wagering, LLC
Docket
No public docket number identified; the attorney general published six recipient-specific letters.
Filed
September 16, 2026
Verification
Six official attorney-general letters verified. The letters demand confirmation within 30 days of compliance with Missouri licensing and tax requirements or cessation of Missouri sports-event contracts; five letters also address access by people under 21. No lawsuit, operator response, compliance, withdrawal or adjudicatory ruling has been verified.
Source
Kalshi letter ↗
MissouriSeptember 17, 2026Cease-and-desist letters issued — compliance or challenges not yet verifiedSources›
Blue Lake Rancheria et al. v. KalshiEX LLC et al.Tribal · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; on appeal to the Ninth Circuit

September 16, 2026: The Ninth Circuit reversed the IGRA portion of the preliminary-injunction denial, holding that the tribes are likely to succeed in showing Kalshi’s sports-event contracts violate IGRA when offered on tribal lands. No injunction has issued; the case returns to the district court for the remaining preliminary-injunction factors.

Brought by
Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California, Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians
Against
Kalshi, Robinhood
As filed
Blue Lake Rancheria; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians v. KalshiEX LLC; Robinhood Derivatives, LLC
Docket
N.D. Cal. No. 3:25-cv-06162
On appeal
Ninth Circuit No. 25-7504
Filed
July 22, 2025
Verification
Docket/primary record linked
Source
Primary docket, filed document or official order ↗
CaliforniaSeptember 16, 2026Ninth Circuit remand, no injunction yetSources›
KalshiEX LLC v. Bird et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa

September 15, 2026 — Kalshi filed an interlocutory notice of appeal from the order denying preliminary injunctive relief. The district clerk notified the U.S. court of appeals; no Eighth Circuit case number or appellate ruling was confirmed when checked. The notice does not stay or reverse the denial.

Brought by
Kalshi
Against
Iowa
As filed
KalshiEX LLC v. Brenna Bird; Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission officials
Docket
S.D. Iowa 4:26-cv-00109
Filed
March 11, 2026
Verification
Primary docket/order verified
Source
Primary docket, filed document or official order ↗
IowaSeptember 15, 2026On appeal — preliminary injunction deniedSources›
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Brown et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

September 14, 2026 — Judge Robert Lasnik recused, and the case was reassigned to Judge Thomas Zilly. No merits ruling has issued.

Brought by
Underdog
Against
Washington
As filed
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc.; UDM, LLC d/b/a Underdog Predict v. Brown et al.
Docket
W.D. Wash. No. 2:26-cv-03200
Filed
September 8, 2026
Verification
Official CM/ECF docket and complaint entry verified September 9, 2026
Source
Official complaint entry ↗
WashingtonSeptember 14, 2026Filed — relief not grantedSources›
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Arizona et al.Federal · U.S. District Court, District of Arizona

September 14, 2026 — Arizona filed a motion asking the Ninth Circuit to summarily vacate the preliminary injunction as to sports-event contracts and remand the election-contract issues. The court has not ruled.

Brought by
CFTC, United States
Against
Arizona
As filed
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Arizona; Katie Hobbs; Arizona Department of Gaming; Kris Mayes; Jackie Johnson; Douglas Jensen
Docket
D. Ariz. Nos. 2:26-cv-02246 and 2:26-cv-01715-MTL; Ninth Cir. No. 26-4281, ECF No. 20.1
On appeal
Ninth Circuit No. 26-4281
Filed
April 2026
Verification
May 5 preliminary-injunction order, September 4 summary-disposition request and appellate docket verified
Source
September 4 summary-disposition request reproduced in Daniel Wallach’s post ↗
ArizonaSeptember 14, 2026Preliminary injunction; summary disposition request pendingSources›
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of New York et al.Federal · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

September 14, 2026 — The court heard argument on the federal plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion. No ruling has issued.

Brought by
CFTC, United States
Against
New York
As filed
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. 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
Docket
S.D.N.Y. No. 1:26-cv-03404-LGS, ECF No. 157
Filed
April 24, 2026
Verification
Federal docket, September 4 supplemental response, Ninth Circuit opinion and September 14 hearing verified
Source
Daniel Wallach’s September 12 filing summary ↗
New YorkSeptember 14, 2026Preliminary-injunction motion pendingSources›
Connecticut DCP prediction-market cease-and-desist ordersState · Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection

September 12, 2026 — Published excerpts of a Connecticut DCP subpoena signed September 9 seek media records concerning Connecticut-directed prediction-market advertising from January 1, 2025 onward, including contracts, advertisements, run logs, audience reports, legal representations, targeting instructions and sponsorships. The excerpts do not establish that recipients are under investigation or provide the complete recipient list.

Brought by
Connecticut
Against
Polymarket, Robinhood, Crypto.com, Coinbase, Novig, Webull, Underdog, Gemini, ProphetX
Issued by
Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection to Polymarket, Coinbase, Crypto.com, Robinhood, ProphetX, Novig, Webull, Gemini and Underdog Predict; recipient legal-entity names remain unverified without the orders.
Docket
No public order numbers or court caption identified; the operative orders and subpoenas are available only by records request.
Filed
September 10, 2026
Verification
Official government announcement and published subpoena excerpts verified. Source remains incomplete: the excerpts do not provide the complete recipient list, and the operative cease-and-desist orders and recipient legal-entity names remain pending document production.
Source
Official Connecticut announcement ↗
ConnecticutSeptember 12, 2026Cease-and-desist orders issued — compliance or challenges not yet verifiedSources›
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. State of Nevada et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada

September 11, 2026 — Daniel Wallach reported that North American Derivatives Exchange filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s Nevada sports-event-contract ruling. The Supreme Court has not granted review, and no public Supreme Court docket number had been confirmed when checked.

Brought by
Crypto.com
Against
Nevada
Docket
D. Nev. No. 2:25-cv-00978
On appeal
Ninth Circuit No. 25-7187
Verification
Primary docket/index verified 2026-08-28
Source
Primary docket, filed document or official order ↗
NevadaSeptember 11, 2026Certiorari petition reported — review not grantedSources›
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Connecticut et al.Federal · U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut

Sept. 11, 2026 — Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. Robinhood filed notice supporting its pending, unopposed motion to intervene. Neither request has been granted.

Brought by
CFTC, United States
Against
Connecticut
As filed
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Connecticut; Ned Lamont; William Tong; Bryan Cafferelli; Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, Gaming Division; Kristofer Gilman
Docket
D. Conn. No. 3:26-cv-00498-VDO, Docs. 101–102
Filed
April 2, 2026
Verification
Primary docket and filed-stamped Docs. 101–102 verified September 12, 2026
Source
Primary docket ↗
ConnecticutSeptember 11, 2026Preliminary injunction and intervention motions pendingSources›
Moran v. KalshiEX LLC et al.Federal · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division

Moran alleges Kalshi improperly disciplined him for trading on his own candidacy. The complaint seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief; no merits ruling has been entered.

Brought by
Individual plaintiffs
Against
Kalshi
As filed
Mark Robert Moran v. KalshiEX LLC; Kalshi Inc.
Docket
E.D. Va. No. 1:26-cv-03008, Doc. 1
Filed
September 10, 2026
Verification
Filed-stamped complaint verified September 12, 2026
Source
Filed complaint ↗
VirginiaSeptember 10, 2026Filed — relief not grantedSources›
KalshiEX LLC v. New York State Gaming CommissionPlatform challenge · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; on appeal to the Second Circuit

By September 10, 2026 — The CFTC filed an amicus brief supporting Kalshi’s position in Second Circuit No. 26-1835. The Commission argues that it has regulated event contracts for decades, that extending the same jurisdiction to sports contracts is not a newly discovered power, and that the Ninth Circuit’s major-questions analysis was mistaken. These are the Commission’s arguments; the Second Circuit has not ruled.

Brought by
Kalshi
Against
New York
As filed
KalshiEX LLC v. New York State Gaming Commission and state officials
Docket
S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-08846 (Kalshi v. Williams); 2d Cir. No. 26-1835
On appeal
Second Circuit No. 26-1835
Filed
October 27, 2025
Verification
CFTC amicus excerpt reproduced in Daniel Wallach’s September 10 post; official Second Circuit docket linked but PACER-gated. The docket-entry filing date was not independently confirmed.
Source
CFTC amicus excerpt reproduced in Daniel Wallach’s post ↗
New YorkSeptember 10, 2026Appeal pending — opening brief and CFTC amicus filedSources›
KalshiEX, LLC v. AssadPlatform challenge · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (from D. Nev.)

September 9, 2026 — Kalshi petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit’s August 28 preliminary-injunction decision. The petition remains pending; rehearing has not been granted and the panel opinion has not been vacated.

Brought by
Kalshi
Against
Nevada
As filed
KalshiEX LLC v. George Assad et al.
Docket
D. Nev. No. 2:25-cv-00575; Ninth Cir. No. 25-7516, ECF No. 206.1
On appeal
Ninth Circuit No. 25-7516
Verification
Ninth Circuit opinion, September 9 rehearing petition and appellate docket verified
Source
September 9 rehearing-petition excerpt reproduced in Mick Bransfield’s post ↗
NevadaSeptember 9, 2026Panel ruling; rehearing petition pendingSources›
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Dreitzer et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada

September 9, 2026 — Robinhood Derivatives filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling concerning Nevada regulation of sports-event contracts. The Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case, and its public docket had not yet assigned a case number when checked September 10.

Brought by
Robinhood
Against
Nevada
Docket
D. Nev. No. 2:25-cv-01541
On appeal
Ninth Circuit No. 25-7831
Verification
Certiorari filing reported September 9, 2026; Ninth Circuit docket and Supreme Court public docket checked September 10, 2026. No Supreme Court docket number or grant of review was confirmed.
Source
Certiorari filing reported by Daniel Wallach ↗
NevadaSeptember 9, 2026Certiorari petition filed — review not grantedSources›
KalshiEX LLC v. MartinPlatform challenge · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (from D. Md.)

September 9, 2026 — Maryland and Kalshi filed opposing Rule 28(j) letters addressing the Ninth Circuit’s KalshiEX LLC v. Assad decision. Maryland argues that Assad supports affirmance because sports-event contracts are not swaps and current CFTC regulation bars gaming contracts. Kalshi argues that the decision is nonbinding, misreads the Commodity Exchange Act and will be undermined by the CFTC’s proposed event-contract rule. These are the parties’ positions; the Fourth Circuit has not ruled.

Brought by
Kalshi
Against
Maryland
As filed
KalshiEX LLC v. John Martin, Director, Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency
Docket
D. Md. No. 1:25-cv-01283 (Kalshi v. Martin); 4th Cir. No. 25-1892
On appeal
Fourth Circuit No. 25-1892
Filed
August 1, 2025
Verification
Court-stamped September 9 Rule 28(j) letters reproduced in Daniel Wallach’s post; official Fourth Circuit docket linked. The court has not ruled.
Source
Daniel Wallach’s filing report ↗
MarylandSeptember 9, 2026ON APPEAL — RULE 28(j) LETTERS FILEDSources›
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Campbell et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

September 8, 2026 — Underdog Exchange DCM and UDM, doing business as Underdog Predict, filed this federal action seeking declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against state enforcement of gambling laws over its event-contract business. The complaint asserts Commodity Exchange Act preemption; the court has not decided that claim or granted an injunction.

Brought by
Underdog
Against
Massachusetts
As filed
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc.; UDM, LLC d/b/a Underdog Predict v. Campbell et al.
Docket
D. Mass. No. 1:26-cv-14098
Filed
September 8, 2026
Verification
Official CM/ECF docket and complaint entry verified September 9, 2026; filed complaint text directly reviewed
Source
Filed complaint ↗
MassachusettsSeptember 8, 2026Filed — relief not grantedSources›
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Torrez et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico

September 8, 2026 — Underdog Exchange DCM and UDM, doing business as Underdog Predict, filed this federal action seeking declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against state enforcement of gambling laws over its event-contract business. The complaint asserts Commodity Exchange Act preemption; the court has not decided that claim or granted an injunction.

Brought by
Underdog
Against
New Mexico
As filed
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc.; UDM, LLC d/b/a Underdog Predict v. Torrez et al.
Docket
D.N.M. No. 1:26-cv-02935-JFR-JMR
Filed
September 8, 2026
Verification
Official CM/ECF docket and complaint entry verified September 9, 2026; filed complaint text directly reviewed
Source
Filed complaint ↗
New MexicoSeptember 8, 2026Filed — relief not grantedSources›
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Wilson et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio

September 8, 2026 — Underdog Exchange DCM and UDM, doing business as Underdog Predict, filed this federal action seeking declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against state enforcement of gambling laws over its event-contract business. The complaint asserts Commodity Exchange Act preemption; the court has not decided that claim or granted an injunction.

Brought by
Underdog
Against
Ohio
As filed
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc.; UDM, LLC d/b/a Underdog Predict v. Wilson et al.
Docket
N.D. Ohio No. 1:26-cv-02169
Filed
September 8, 2026
Verification
Official CM/ECF docket and complaint entry verified September 9, 2026
Source
Official complaint entry ↗
OhioSeptember 8, 2026Filed — relief not grantedSources›
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. et al. v. Kaul et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

September 8, 2026 — Underdog Exchange DCM and UDM, doing business as Underdog Predict, filed this federal action seeking declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against state enforcement of gambling laws over its event-contract business. The complaint asserts Commodity Exchange Act preemption; the court has not decided that claim or granted an injunction.

Brought by
Underdog
Against
Wisconsin
As filed
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc.; UDM, LLC d/b/a Underdog Predict v. Kaul et al.
Docket
W.D. Wis. No. 3:26-cv-00858
Filed
September 8, 2026
Verification
Official CM/ECF docket and complaint entry verified September 9, 2026
Source
Official complaint entry ↗
WisconsinSeptember 8, 2026Filed — relief not grantedSources›
Illinois Gaming Board cease-and-desist proceedings concerning KalshiEX LLC and other designated contract markets; related cases United States of America and CFTC v. State of Illinois et al. and KalshiEX LLC v. Raoul et al.State · Administrative — Illinois Gaming Board

September 8, 2026 — Illinois defendants moved for leave to cite the Iowa federal decision denying Kalshi a preliminary injunction as supplemental authority. They argued that the Iowa court’s treatment of sports-event contracts and Commodity Exchange Act preemption bears on the pending Illinois injunction motions. The filing did not decide those motions.

Brought by
Illinois
Against
Kalshi
Issued by
Illinois Gaming Board to Multiple platforms, including KalshiEX LLC
Docket
No agency docket identified for the letters; related N.D. Ill. Nos. 1:26-cv-03659 and 1:26-cv-07363
Filed
April 1, 2025 cease-and-desist letters; April 2, 2026 CFTC/United States complaint; June 23, 2026 Kalshi complaint
Verification
Official docket and filed Document 54 image verified September 9, 2026
Source
Filed Document 54 ↗
IllinoisSeptember 8, 2026Cease-and-desist — enforcement enjoinedSources›
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Nessel et al.Platform challenge · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan

September 4, 2026 — Judge Paul L. Maloney entered the parties’ stipulation requiring Robinhood to cease offering new sports-related event contracts to Michigan customers by September 9 and close remaining Michigan customer positions by October 9. Michigan officials agreed to forbear from sports-event-contract enforcement against Robinhood while it complies. The arrangement remains in place pending final resolution of the specified Sixth Circuit appeals, including any Supreme Court proceedings, or dissolution of the state-court injunction in Nessel v. KalshiEX LLC. The stipulation is without prejudice and does not decide the merits.

Brought by
Robinhood
Against
Michigan
Docket
W.D. Mich. No. 1:26-cv-00730
On appeal
Sixth Circuit No. 26-1542
Verification
Signed September 4 stipulation and order verified from the document reproduced in Daniel Wallach’s post.
Source
Signed September 4 stipulation and order, page 1 ↗
MichiganSeptember 4, 2026On appeal — michigan sports contracts paused by stipulation/orderSources›
KalshiEX LLC v. FlahertyPlatform challenge · U.S. Supreme Court (from the Third Circuit)

September 2, 2026 — New Jersey filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking whether the Dodd-Frank Act preempts states from regulating sports bets offered on CFTC-registered markets. The petition cites the direct conflict between the Third Circuit’s ruling for Kalshi and the Ninth Circuit’s August 28 ruling against Kalshi. Supreme Court docket assignment remains pending.

Brought by
Kalshi
Against
New Jersey
As filed
KalshiEX LLC v. Marlene Caride; David Rebuck; New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement; Matthew J. Platkin
Docket
D.N.J. No. 1:25-cv-02152; Third Cir. No. 25-1922; U.S. Supreme Court petition filed, docket number pending
On appeal
Third Circuit No. 25-1922
Filed
2025
Verification
Third Circuit opinion, Supreme Court extension docket and September 2 petition verified
Source
September 2 petition for a writ of certiorari ↗
New JerseySeptember 2, 2026Certiorari petition filedSources›
Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General, on behalf of the People of Michigan and the Michigan Gaming Control Board v. KalshiEX LLCState · Michigan state court (remanded from federal court)

September 1, 2026 — Ingham County Circuit Judge Rosemarie E. Aquilina entered a preliminary injunction restricting Kalshi from offering or facilitating products constituting internet sports betting to people located in Michigan. The order requires Kalshi to use a Michigan-licensed third-party geolocation provider, requires notice to relevant futures commission merchants within three business days and provides for a $500,000-per-day fine for each day the court finds that Kalshi failed to comply with its geolocation requirements. The order remains effective until a final order is issued. Sixth Circuit No. 26-1639, arising from Kalshi's appeal of the June 25 remand order, remains separately docketed.

Brought by
Michigan
Against
Kalshi
Docket
Ingham County Circuit Court No. 26-1087-CZ; W.D. Mich. No. 1:26-cv-00731; Sixth Circuit No. 26-1639
On appeal
Sixth Circuit No. 26-1639
Filed
March 5, 2026 federal removal; June 29, 2026 state TRO
Verification
Official preliminary-injunction order verified September 1, 2026
Source
Official September 1 preliminary-injunction order ↗
MichiganSeptember 1, 2026Preliminary injunction in effectSources›
By state

Where the cases are

28 states and DC, plus federal and tribal forums.

Prediction market legal matters by jurisdiction
Platforms involved
New York27Sep 30, 2026Coinbase, Crypto.com, Gemini, Kalshi, Novig, Polymarket
Nevada9Sep 11, 2026Coinbase, Crypto.com, Gemini, Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood
Illinois8Sep 8, 2026Coinbase, Crypto.com, Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, Webull
California7Sep 16, 2026Kalshi, Robinhood
Massachusetts7Sep 8, 2026Kalshi, Novig, Polymarket, Robinhood, Underdog, Webull
Wisconsin7Sep 8, 2026Coinbase, Crypto.com, Kalshi, Novig, Polymarket, Robinhood, Underdog
Washington6Sep 14, 2026Crypto.com, Kalshi, Novig, Robinhood, Underdog
Connecticut6Sep 12, 2026Coinbase, Crypto.com, Gemini, Kalshi, Novig, Polymarket, ProphetX, Robinhood, Underdog, Webull
New Mexico6Sep 8, 2026Kalshi, Novig, Polymarket, Underdog
Kentucky6Aug 10, 2026Coinbase, Crypto.com, Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, Webull
Maryland5Sep 9, 2026Coinbase, Crypto.com, Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, Webull
Ohio5Sep 8, 2026Kalshi, Robinhood, Underdog, Webull
The arguments

Five questions the courts and scholars are arguing

Question 1

Does federal commodities law reach event contracts at all?

Ilya Beylin (U. Chicago Business Law Review, 2025) says many event contracts serve neither hedging nor price discovery, so state law still applies. Alexander Kurtz (Boston College Law Review, 2026) finds the law contradictory but would narrow the CFTC’s power to shut markets down rather than widen state power.
Read: Beylin · Kurtz

Question 2

Should one regulator own this, or both?

Holden, Turk and Edelman (Illinois Law Review) call sports contracts regulatory arbitrage and argue for a role for both levels of government. David Krause (CLS Blue Sky) says the test should be what a contract does, not where it’s listed.
Read: Holden, Turk & Edelman · Krause

Question 3

Does tribal gaming authority survive CFTC registration?

Tribes argue sports contracts on tribal lands are Class III gaming under IGRA; Kalshi argues tribal authority doesn’t reach non-members and federal law preempts the claim. The Ninth Circuit has sided with two California tribes at the preliminary stage.
Read: Sepe (SSRN)

Question 4

Are sports contracts a different problem?

The NFL, NBA, NCAA and five players’ unions want integrity safeguards sportsbooks already have: minimum age, prop limits, barred-bettor lists. MLB signed an integrity agreement with the CFTC. Kalshi backs the CFTC’s contract-by-contract review.
Read: NCAA request · Players’ unions

Question 5

How good are the prices as forecasts?

Wolfers and Zitzewitz (2004) find prediction markets forecast well. A 2026 study of about 23 million Kalshi sports trades (Moshrefi) finds calibration breaks down near expiry and combos are priced above fair value.
Read: Wolfers & Zitzewitz · Moshrefi

Legal news

Our latest legal coverage

All news →
Explanation

How the tracker works

What counts as a matter

Each record is one distinct lawsuit, court case or regulatory action. Separately filed lawsuits stay separate even when a court coordinates or consolidates them. Appeals are attached to the case they came from, and amicus briefs or interventions don’t create new records. That gives 133 matters: 120 lawsuits and 13 administrative or enforcement actions, across 28 states and DC.

How records are verified

Every record links its primary source: a court docket, a filed document or an official order. The “latest activity” is what that source shows, with the date it was verified. Where a development has only been reported, not seen on a docket, the record says so, as with the reported Crypto.com petition.

Further reading

Report an omission or error

If a case is missing or a record is wrong, tell us through our contact form with a link to the docket or document. We correct records and note the date.

Methodology

One record per distinct lawsuit, court case or regulatory action, each linked to its primary source: a docket, filed document or official order. Counts are computed from the records. Full methodology →

Full methodology
RecordsOne record per distinct lawsuit, court case or regulatory action, each linked to a docket, filed document or official order.
CountingSeparately filed lawsuits stay separate even when consolidated; appeals attach to the original case; amicus briefs don’t add records.
UpdatesEach record shows its latest verified activity and the date it was verified.
CorrectionsMissing or wrong records are corrected with a dated note.

Data and sources

Questions

Is Kalshi legal in every state?

Kalshi operates nationally under CFTC rules, but several states are challenging its sports contracts, and federal appeals courts have split. The Third Circuit ruled for Kalshi in New Jersey; the Ninth Circuit ruled against it in Nevada.

Will the Supreme Court decide whether sports prediction markets are legal?

Three petitions ask it to. The Court hasn’t agreed to hear any of them yet; four justices must vote to take a case.

How many prediction market lawsuits are there?

We track 133 U.S. legal matters: 120 lawsuits and 13 administrative or enforcement actions, across 28 states and DC.

About the authors

Derek Helling has covered the regulated sports industry for many publications since 2018.

Cheryle Shepstone is DeFi Rate’s Director of Content and Strategy and oversees its prediction-market research, platform reviews and editorial methodology.

Keep reading

Related odds and guides