New Jersey Takes Kalshi Sports Betting Fight to Supreme Court
New Jersey Takes Kalshi Sports Betting Fight to Supreme Court
Will the U.S. Supreme Court decide if prediction markets like Kalshi can offer sports bets without following state gambling laws? Oo, kaso—New Jersey just filed a petition asking the Court to resolve a direct split between federal appeals courts. Kung ma-grant ang certiorari, ang desisyon ay magtatakda kung ang CFTC-registered exchanges ay exempt sa state sports betting regulations, at maaaring makaapekto sa traditional sportsbooks at casinos nationwide.
Ano ang hinihingi ng New Jersey sa Supreme Court?
Nag-file ang New Jersey ng petition for a writ of certiorari noong Sept. 2, na humihiling sa Korte Suprema na sagutin ang tanong: “Did the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act preempt states from regulating sports bets offered on CFTC-registered markets?” Specifically, sinasabi ng estado na ang Third Circuit’s ruling—na ang Kalshi’s sports contracts ay “swaps” at exempt sa state law—ay mali. “Companies like Kalshi claim to offer legal sports betting in all 50 States, but they refuse to follow the gambling laws of any State,” sabi ni New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport sa petition.
Bakit may “direct split” sa pagitan ng federal appeals courts?
Ang Third Circuit (April 2025) ay nagdesisyon 2-1 na ang Kalshi’s sports contracts ay kwalipikado bilang swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, at dahil dito, federal commodities law preempts New Jersey’s gambling rules. Pero ang Ninth Circuit (late August 2025) ay nagkaroon ng opposite conclusion sa Nevada litigation: sinabi nila na ang Kalshi’s sports contracts ay hindi swaps, kaya hindi preempted ang state gambling laws. Tinawag ng New Jersey ang disagreement na “direct, acknowledged, and irreconcilable split”—kailangan na raw mag-intervene ang Supreme Court.
Comparison ng Third Circuit vs. Ninth Circuit Rulings
| Aspect | Third Circuit (New Jersey) | Ninth Circuit (Nevada) |
|---|---|---|
| Holding | Kalshi’s sports contracts = swaps; federal law preempts state gambling rules | Kalshi’s sports contracts ≠ swaps; state laws not preempted |
| Key Basis | Dodd-Frank definition of swaps includes event contracts | Federal regulation (CFTC’s current rulemaking) excludes them |
| Effect on Kalshi | Allowed Kalshi to operate in New Jersey (pending appeal) | Blocked Kalshi in Nevada (injunction stands) |
| Dissent | Judge Roth warned treating sports bets as swaps would “logical extreme” | Unanimous panel, no dissent |
Paano ito makakaapekto sa traditional sportsbooks at casinos?
Hindi lang prediction markets ang nakataya, sabi ng New Jersey. Kung tama ang Kalshi’s interpretation na federalized ang sports wagering under Dodd-Frank, ang mga sportsbook na tumatakbo legally mula noong Murphy v. NCAA (2018) ay “apparently been violating Dodd-Frank all along.” Judge Jane Roth sa Third Circuit dissent ay nagtaas ng same concern: kung swaps lang ang tawag sa sports bets, halos lahat ng swaps traded outside CFTC-registered markets ay unlawful. Posibleng maapektuhan din ang tribal gaming framework sa ilalim ng Indian Gaming Regulatory Act at ang Wire Act.
Ano ang current legal status ng prediction markets?
Simula nang mag-offer ang Kalshi ng sports contracts noong January 2025, dumami ang legal challenges. Ayon sa petition ng New Jersey, may 20 states ang sangkot sa litigation laban sa Kalshi at iba pang prediction market companies. Mas malawak pa: 44 states, plus hundreds of tribes, casinos, at public officials ay sumalungat. Gaming attorney Daniel Wallach nag-compile ng 39 judicial decisions sa prediction market disputes: 33 pabor sa states, 6 pabor sa prediction market interests. After Michigan’s Sept. 1 preliminary injunction against Kalshi, total ay 40 decisions—34 pabor sa states.
State vs. Prediction Market Rulings (as of Sept. 2025)
| Type of Ruling | Favoring States | Favoring Prediction Markets |
|---|---|---|
| Preliminary injunctions | 20 | 3 |
| Temporary restraining orders | 8 | 1 |
| Appellate stays | 4 | 2 |
| Other (e.g., denials) | 2 | 0 |
| Total | 34 | 6 |
Si Kalshi ay nag-push back. Dani Lever, Head of Strategic Communications, sinabi: “Kalshi is an open, nationwide financial exchange. It cannot be regulated by 50 different regulators.” And they argue na ang Ninth Circuit ay hindi nag-reject ng principle ng CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction—iba lang ang conclusion base sa regulation na currently inaayos ng agency.
Kailan magkakaroon ng desisyon ang Supreme Court?
Hindi guarantee na tanggapin ang petition. Ang justices ay magde-decide muna kung mag-grant ng certiorari, at iyan ay pwedeng abutin ng months. For reference, ang Murphy v. NCAA timeline: filed October 2016, granted June 2017, argued December 2017, decided May 2018. Kung susundin ang pattern, ang final decision sa Kalshi dispute ay pwedeng abutin ng 2027 o 2028. Even kung ma-grant ngayong term, kailangan pa ng briefing at arguments. Pero kung tanggapin, ang desisyon ay magbibigay ng first nationwide answer: pwede ba ang CFTC-registered exchanges na mag-offer ng sports contracts regardless ng state gambling law?
Related guides
- Ano ang Nugget Ridge? Isang bagong mining-themed slot mula sa Relax Gaming
- Basketball takes over sports gambling on Bodog
- Behind The Gloves Brings Trading Card Activation to SBC Summit Lisbon for Midnight Mayhem
- Bill Simmons, Nahaharap sa Action ng FanDuel at Review ng Massachusetts Dahil sa Proxy Betting
- Churchill Downs at Horsemen, Humihingi ng Independent Review ng HISA sa FTC