Kalshi Faces Nov. 9 Deadline as States and NFL Back Supreme Court Review

Kalshi has until Nov. 9 to respond to New Jersey's U.S. Supreme Court petition, as states, tribal organizations and the NFL push the justices to resolve a growing dispute over who regulates sports prediction markets.

The Supreme Court granted Kalshi's extension request Sept. 22, moving its response deadline from Oct. 8 to Nov. 9 in Flaherty v. KalshiEX LLC, case No. 26-299.

New Jersey is challenging an April appeals court ruling that temporarily protected Kalshi from state gambling enforcement. The Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case.

Why Kalshi received more time

Kalshi attorney Neal Kumar Katyal requested the extension Sept. 18, citing previously scheduled professional commitments that would make preparing a response difficult. The letter also noted that New Jersey received two extensions before filing its petition Sept. 2.

Kalshi is expected to argue against Supreme Court review, although the extension itself does not indicate how the justices will ultimately handle the petition. At issue is whether federal commodities law prevents states from applying their gambling regulations to sports event contracts offered through federally registered exchanges.

Kalshi maintains that its contracts qualify as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, placing them within the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's exclusive jurisdiction.

New Jersey disputes that interpretation, arguing that Congress never intended federal financial regulations and prediction market apps to override states' traditional authority over sports wagering.

Conflicting court rulings drive dispute

The Third Circuit sided with Kalshi in April, affirming a preliminary injunction preventing New Jersey regulators from enforcing their gambling laws against the exchange. The court's 2-1 decision found Kalshi likely to succeed on its federal preemption argument. However, the ruling concerned preliminary protection, not a final determination that sports prediction markets are exempt from state regulation nationwide.

Other federal appeals courts have reached different conclusions.

In August, the Ninth Circuit rejected Kalshi's argument that its Nevada sports contracts qualified as federally regulated swaps. The Sixth Circuit followed in September, ruling against Kalshi in cases involving Ohio and Tennessee.

The Sixth Circuit also concluded that even if the contracts qualified as swaps, federal commodities law would not displace the states' gambling regulations.

States and NFL support New Jersey

The case has attracted substantial interest from regulators and organizations concerned about sports betting oversight. On Oct. 7, attorneys general from 39 states and the District of Columbia filed a brief supporting New Jersey's petition.

The coalition argues that federal regulation should not allow prediction markets to bypass state gambling protections, including licensing requirements, minimum betting ages and responsible-gambling safeguards.

The NFL filed its own supporting brief Oct. 8, raising concerns about whether the CFTC has sufficient resources and oversight mechanisms to protect sporting integrity. The league questioned federal safeguards addressing insider trading, suspicious wagering and potential manipulation of sporting events.

The CFTC disputed that characterization, telling Reuters it had offered the NFL an information-sharing agreement that the league declined to sign. Additional supporting briefs have come from the American Gaming Association, gaming regulators and 145 tribal nations and organizations.

The filings do not determine the outcome of the dispute, but demonstrate the breadth of opposition to Kalshi's interpretation of federal authority.