On Wednesday, the District of Columbia, Ohio, and 38 state attorneys general filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court. The brief encourages SCOTUS to side with New Jersey by granting certiorari in the April 2026 Third Circuit appellate decision that backed prediction market Kalshi.
READ: Forty State AGs Back New Jersey in Amicus Brief to SCOTUS (October 7th, 2026)
To date, federal appeals courts have taken three different paths to defining prediction market sports contracts.
In their October 7th amicus brief, state AGs told the Supreme Court that the confusion resulting from conflicting federal court rulings has led to “chaos.”
“The resulting confusion has led to chaos as the States and federal government engage in regulatory battles across the country,” according to Wednesday’s amicus brief filing with the Supreme Court.
The 35-page document submitted by 40 state attorneys general paints a narrative-driven picture regarding the ongoing legal battles over prediction markets. Terms like “turf war” (pages 2, 11, and 18), “chaos” (pages 11 and 27), “messy” (page 11), and “hopelessly confused” (page 10) appear within the formal filing.
The descriptive language was pointed out on Wednesday in a social media post uploaded by fintech IP and corporate counsel Ariel Givner. The Philadelphia-based founder of Givner Law is a proponent for CFTC oversight of prediction markets, including contracts that relate to sports outcomes.
“These are federal financial contracts, traded on a federally licensed exchange, and they belong under one regulator: the CFTC,” said Givner on Wednesday afternoon. “[The states’] entire case leans on one idea: gambling is state turf, hands off. But that skips the only question that matters, which is what these contracts actually are… and what they are is financial instruments.”
The US Supreme Court inarguably enjoys full judicial discretion over how (or whether) prediction market sports contracts will be categorized on a nationwide level. Absent a clear act by Congress, the legal opinions of prediction market lawyers, the CFTC, state attorneys general, and tribal gaming authorities are all subject to SCOTUS rulings, meaning they are not set in stone.
Although the Supreme Court could decide not to hear or review any prediction market case, legal experts agree that the existing cases meet the traditional criteria for review due to the industry impact along with the current circuit split. However, the timeline for such a review or hearing by SCOTUS is mid-2027 at the earliest.
Until that time, the federal appellate rulings apply within their stipulated jurisdictions, and active traders should stay mindful about where prediction markets are legal in the U.S. The result could be more geofencing of Kalshi’s sports contracts in states that are covered by the Sixth Circuit and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals.
Loading …
