The NFL just took a side in the biggest legal fight in sports betting, and it’s not Kalshi’s side.
In a new filing at the U.S. Supreme Court, the league is asking the justices to take up New Jersey’s case against Kalshi. It also wants the Court to rule that state gambling regulators, not just the federal government, get to police sports contracts on prediction markets.
Marshall Cohen flagged the filing on X this week, calling it “big.”
He pointed out three things. Football drives more prediction market volume than any other sport. The NFL is breaking from MLB and the NHL, both of which have prediction market partnerships. And the move puts the league at odds with the Trump administration.
What the NFL actually said
The league wants a decision fast. In the brief, it says the Court needs to act “before another NFL season goes by,” because billions of dollars will be traded on NFL games through prediction markets every year. Any delay, it argues, means more consumer harm and more risk to game integrity.
The NFL also says outright that it agrees with the Sixth and Ninth Circuits. If those courts are right, the “full panoply” of state rules would apply to exchanges like Kalshi. That means licensing, age limits, integrity monitoring and responsible gambling protections.
The league is also hedging. If the Court goes the other way and says the CFTC is the only regulator, the NFL says it will push the Commission, the exchanges and Congress to add stronger integrity and consumer protections before the 2027 season.
How we got here
Kalshi started offering sports contracts in January 2025. It argues they’re “swaps” under federal commodities law, which would put them under the exclusive control of the CFTC and outside state gambling law.
The courts can’t agree on whether that’s true.
In April, a divided Third Circuit panel sided with Kalshi 2-1 and blocked New Jersey from enforcing its sports betting laws against the company. In August, the Ninth Circuit went the other way in Kalshi’s fight with Nevada.
Then in late September, the Sixth Circuit ruled against Kalshi in its cases against Ohio and Tennessee. Judge Julia Smith Gibbons wrote that sports contracts have only “downstream economic consequences.” The court found they aren’t swaps, and that even if they were, federal law wouldn’t override state gambling rules.
That gives Kalshi one win and two losses at the appellate level. A circuit split like that is exactly the kind of thing that gets the Supreme Court’s attention.
New Jersey filed its petition on Sept. 2. It’s the first prediction market case to land at the high court.
The NFL isn’t alone
The league joins a long list of groups asking the Court to step in. The National Council of Legislators from Gaming States filed a brief backing New Jersey in September. Tribal gaming groups have been organizing their own. And New Jersey’s petition notes that 44 states, hundreds of tribes and casino operators have opposed the prediction markets’ legal position.
On the other side, Crypto.com and Robinhood have also urged the Court to take up the broader federal-versus-state question.
Kalshi hasn’t filed its formal response yet. The company has argued it can’t be regulated by 50 different state regulators.
Why this matters for bettors
If the Court sides with the states, apps like Kalshi would likely need state licenses to offer sports contracts, or pull them in places where they can’t get one. That could reshape how NFL action is offered across the country.
If the Court sides with Kalshi, prediction markets keep operating nationwide under federal oversight, including in states that don’t allow traditional sports betting.
Either way, the NFL has made its position clear. It wants the referees to be the same ones overseeing sportsbooks today.
The Court still has to decide whether it will even hear the case. That decision could come later this year.