Prediction Markets at the Supreme Court: 3 Petitions Explained

No petition has been granted or denied yet. This article sets out where each of the three certiorari petitions (formal requests for the Court to hear an appeal) stands as of October 4, 2026, and which dates to watch.

The three petitions

Dates are from the Supreme Court’s dockets. Response deadlines can be extended again.

The petitioners come from both sides. In No. 26-299, New Jersey’s gaming regulator is asking the Court to reverse a loss. In the other two, the platforms are. States and platforms alike are asking for a nationwide answer.

The question the Court is being asked to settle

Under the Commodity Exchange Act, the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over swaps and futures traded on registered exchanges. The platforms argue that sports event contracts are swaps, so federal law overrides, or preempts, state gambling law. The states argue they are sports bets that need a state license.

Each appellate court framed the answer slightly differently. The Third Circuit (2-1, No. 25-1922) said Kalshi was likely to show its sports contracts are swaps and that federal law likely preempts New Jersey’s rules. The Ninth Circuit (3-0) called them sports bets, not swaps (our coverage). The Sixth Circuit (3-0) said Kalshi had not shown they are swaps and that preemption would fail anyway (our coverage).

The Fourth Circuit heard Maryland’s case on May 7, 2026 and had not ruled as of October 4. Appeals are also pending in the Second and Seventh Circuits. A split among federal circuits on an important federal question is one of the factors the Court’s own rules list when it decides whether to grant review.

Our read: what to watch

This section is analysis, not a prediction of the outcome.

Which vehicle the Court picks. The Court sometimes grants one petition and holds the others, or consolidates them. The Kalshi case comes with a full published opinion and a dissent in the Third Circuit. The Crypto.com case was decided by an unpublished memorandum, which gives the justices less reasoning to review. That does not decide anything, but it is a factor practitioners watch.

Kalshi’s position. Kalshi is the respondent in No. 26-299 and won below. It has lost in the Ninth and Sixth Circuits. We have not confirmed whether Kalshi has filed its own petition from those losses as of October 4, 2026. Its brief, due November 9, will show whether it opposes review or agrees the Court should step in.

Outside voices. Friend-of-the-court (amicus) briefs in No. 26-299 have been filed by the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States, or NCLGS (September 22), and by gaming-regulator groups IAGR and NAGRA (October 2), according to the docket. Briefs from groups of state legislators and regulators signal how closely the states are watching. The CFTC, which says it has sued nine states over prediction markets, argued for its exclusive jurisdiction in a February 2026 amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit.

The regulatory backdrop. The CFTC proposed rewriting its event-contract rule (Rule 40.11) in June 2026. A final rule could change the arguments the Court hears, but we found no final rule as of October 4.

What it means for users now

Nothing changes because a petition was filed. Platforms are still following the court orders that apply in each state, which is why the same app can offer sports contracts in New Jersey and block them in Nevada. If the Court grants review, a merits decision would take months; until then the state-by-state picture in our legal tracker is the practical guide. To understand what you are actually buying when you trade an event contract, see how prediction markets work.

This article is not legal advice.