The National Football League filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court supporting a petition by New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and gaming enforcement interim director Mary Jo Flaherty. The petition seeks review of a case against Kalshi to determine if prediction market companies are subject to state or federal jurisdiction. The NFL argued that labeling sporting-event contracts as "swaps" raises integrity concerns, citing data showing that about $1.8 billion of the $3.3 billion in prediction-market trading volume on the first Sunday of the football season related to the NFL. The league contended these contracts are susceptible to manipulation by players, coaches, or officials and lack sufficient safeguards from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Thirty-nine US states and the District of Columbia also filed an amicus brief backing New Jersey, describing the conflict between the CFTC and state authorities as a "national turf war." They urged the court to resolve the circuit split and clarify regulatory authority. Kalshi spokesperson Dani Lever previously stated the company could not be regulated by 50 different regulators. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant certiorari, while Kalshi received an extension until November 9 to respond to the filing.
This intervention highlights the growing tension between traditional sports governance and emerging financial technology platforms. By aligning with state regulators, the NFL signals that the classification of event contracts as federally regulated swaps threatens core operational interests, specifically game integrity and consumer protection. The scale of betting volume cited underscores that prediction markets have moved beyond niche speculation into mainstream engagement, making regulatory ambiguity a material risk for league credibility and fan trust.
The coalition of 39 states and the DC suggests a broader institutional push to reclaim regulatory control from the CFTC. If the Supreme Court grants review, the outcome will likely define the legal perimeter for prediction markets nationwide. A ruling favoring state authority would fragment compliance requirements, potentially stifling innovation but reinforcing local oversight mechanisms. Conversely, upholding federal preemption could accelerate market consolidation but leave specific sports-integrity concerns unaddressed by uniform commodity regulations.
