NFL Requests Supreme Court to Hear Kalshi Sports Contracts Case
On October 8, the National Football League (NFL) submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of New Jersey regulators' lawsuit against the prediction market Kalshi, requesting the court to take up the case.
In the brief, the league stated that sports event contracts on platforms like Kalshi are gambling, not swaps, and should not be exclusively regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), but rather by state gambling laws. It specified that while it does not oppose prediction markets, the matter is better suited for the states given the limited resources of the commission. The league also requested a minimum customer age of 21, while Kalshi currently allows users as young as 18.
The league provided figures indicating that the total trading volume in prediction markets for the first Sunday of the season was $3.3 billion, with $1.8 billion related to NFL events, accounting for over half. Examples cited in the brief included whether the Washington Commanders would make the 2026 playoffs, the Week 18 game against the Dallas Cowboys, and the number of touchdowns by Cowboys wide receiver CeeDee Lamb in that game. The league expressed concerns about categories that could be influenced by individuals, such as penalties, injuries, and field goals, stating that neither the commission nor the platforms prohibit easily manipulable contract categories.
Procedurally, New Jersey applied for a motion to compel in September. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Kalshi in April, prohibiting the state from enforcing gambling laws. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the opposite direction in a Nevada case, determining that sports contracts fall under state law. Kalshi must respond by November 9. The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case as early as December. On Wednesday, attorneys general from 39 states and the District of Columbia also submitted a brief supporting New Jersey.
Kalshi's position is that these contracts fall under swaps governed by federal law, and the commission has already regulated sports-related markets, with federal oversight being preferable to state-by-state licensing and taxation. CFTC spokesperson Brooke Nethercott stated that the league refused to sign a memorandum of understanding, which would have allowed for information exchange with the commission to maintain market integrity.
Buyers are funding contracts predicting NFL outcomes in the prediction market, while sellers are subject to state licensing, state taxes, and a 21-year age threshold for gambling regulation. The driving issue is jurisdictional division, not scheduling. The $1.8 billion from the first Sunday has already entered event contracts. If the court assigns the contracts to the states, funds will need to cover licensing and taxes. If federal exclusivity is maintained, state sports betting tax and age rules will be circumvented. Platforms obtaining exclusive jurisdiction benefit, while state gambling tax bases and the league's integrity control are under pressure.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
The NFL's position on sports betting jurisdiction has reversed once. Before the 2018 Murphy v. NCAA case, the league submitted briefs opposing New Jersey's unilateral gambling. After the ban was lifted by the Supreme Court, states began licensing, taxing, and setting a 21-year age threshold, with the league shifting to manage integrity within state frameworks. On October 8, 2026, it submitted another brief, this time siding with New Jersey against Kalshi's classification of event contracts as swaps.
The resources are not from the league's funding but from writing the $1.8 billion event volume from the first Sunday into the motion to compel. The attorneys general from 39 states and the District of Columbia had already submitted a brief the day before. The Third Circuit prohibited New Jersey from enforcing the law, while the Ninth Circuit ruled in Nevada that it falls under state law, and this division itself is a reason for the application to be accepted. Kalshi aims to maintain the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction, while the league seeks age, tax, and manipulation category bans. The commission stated that the league refused to sign a cooperation memorandum.
Similar disputes have occurred since 2010 between state lotteries and online poker, as well as state sports betting against overseas odds after 2018. The difference this time is that the product holds a designated contract market license, claiming to be swaps. The industry position is in a control phase: volume has increased, but rules have not yet been unified. November 9 is the deadline for Kalshi's defense, and the decision on whether to accept the case will not be seen until December at the earliest.
The essence is regulatory change. The same event contract, if called a swap, falls under federal commodity law; if called a bet, it falls under state police power. The mechanism is the coexistence of two appellate conclusions, with platforms using federal priority to bypass state taxes and the 21-year threshold, while the league demands the classification authority be returned to the states for integrity and manipulation concerns. If the court accepts the case, the change will not be the score, but whether this $1.8 billion counts as trading or gambling.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
- Names determine jurisdiction, jurisdiction determines tax rates.
- Volume comes first, rules follow.
- Federal wants uniformity, states want a cut.