On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court formally added New Jersey’s recent petition for certiorari in the Third Circuit Kalshi case to its docket. The news, shared by Miami Law School professor Daniel Wallach, includes an October 8th deadline for Kalshi to respond and for amicus briefs to be filed with the nation’s highest court.
Following October 8th, SCOTUS could take weeks (or months) to decide whether to actually “grant cert.” If it denies New Jersey’s petition, the Third Circuit decision in favor of Kalshi will stand. However, there are various mechanisms at the US Supreme Court’s disposal besides simply “granting” or “denying” New Jersey’s petition for certiorari.
Some legal experts note that a delay would give other pending Circuit Court cases time to play out, providing the Justices with a more comprehensive legal record to review.
The SCOTUS acknowledgement of New Jersey’s petition does not necessarily mean that the Third Circuit case will be heard. It is a mere formality that does not immediately impact Kalshi, aside from prompting the prediction exchange to respond by October 8th.
Since the Third Circuit’s April 2026 ruling was in favor of Kalshi, the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware will be unable to force the prediction platform to geofence its products in the meantime. However, the jurisdiction of that Third Circuit decision only applies to PA, NJ, and DE.
Yes, Kalshi’s sports contracts (at a bare minimum) could be geofenced in other states in the coming weeks or months. The Ninth Circuit ruling, issued late last month, covers the jurisdictions of California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, and Montana.
Although Kalshi’s sports contracts are currently restricted in Nevada, Washington, Michigan, and Massachusetts, the exchange faces additional regulatory scrutiny in other states covered by the Ninth Circuit ruling or separate federal court rulings against Kalshi.
Pending Circuit Court of Appeals rulings in the First Circuit and Tenth Circuit (which denied Kalshi’s emergency motion for an injunction on Tuesday) could be issued later this year, with additional legal battles ongoing in the Second, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits. The decisions handed down by those courts could ultimately impact when (and where) Kalshi is forced to geofence its most popular products between now and the time the US Supreme Court hears one or more related cases.
While courts remain the most widely accepted venue for settling legal disputes, prediction market advocates and opponents alike can join lobbying efforts to further their cause in the societal realm.
The two sides of the battle over prediction markets boil down to:
Advocates: Prediction market fans argue that the necessary liquidity to drive prediction market trading is best secured through exclusive regulation by the CFTC that allows markets to operate nationwide. Trades made on exchanges (even sports contracts) are viewed as financial derivatives that are immune to state enforcement.
Opponents: Prediction market naysayers argue that prediction markets (particularly sports contracts) cannibalize state-licensed and tribal-licensed gaming activities, therefore decreasing tax revenue that is allocated toward local projects.
Loading …
