What did the NFL argue in its Supreme Court brief?

The NFL argued that sports-related prediction market contracts are effectively gambling products rather than financial swaps. In its view, they should be regulated by individual states, which oversee sports betting, rather than by the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That position challenges platforms that operate nationwide under federal commodities oversight and could affect how these contracts are offered.

Which case is the Supreme Court being asked to review?

The case stems from New Jersey's dispute with Kalshi, which sued the state to block enforcement of its gambling laws. Kalshi won at the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, and New Jersey has asked the Supreme Court to resolve a split among federal appeals courts on the issue.

Has the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case?

No, the Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear the case. The justices are expected to consider whether to take it up at a closed-door conference later this term. Only a share of petitions are granted, so a decision to hear the case is not guaranteed, and an announcement would likely follow the conference.

NFL Tells Supreme Court Prediction Markets Are Gambling, Should Be Regulated by States

Article By Shannon Lane Last Updated: Oct 8^th, 2026 · 2 min read

NFL Tells Supreme Court Prediction Markets Are Gambling, Should Be Regulated by States

The NFL has asked the US Supreme Court to rule that states, not the federal government, should regulate sports-related prediction markets.

The league filed an amicus brief on October 8 backing New Jersey regulators in their fight against Kalshi, arguing that sports prediction contracts are gambling products rather than financial swaps that should fall under exclusive federal oversight, according to CNBC.

What the NFL Told the Court

The NFL's brief states that football accounted for $1.8 billion in prediction markets trading on the first Sunday of the 2026 season; more than half the total volume across all sports that week, per CNBC. The league says it is not opposed to prediction markets outright but wants tighter guardrails than platforms like Kalshi currently apply.

Specifically, the NFL wants a minimum betting age of 21, matching the standard most states require for sports betting; on Kalshi, customers can currently be as young as 18. The league is also concerned about contract types it considers vulnerable to manipulation, such as proposition-style markets tied to missed field goals, fumbles, injuries or officiating decisions where insiders could hold an edge.

"Neither the CFTC nor the prediction market companies themselves, despite our persistent urging, have banned categories of bets susceptible to manipulation or set a 21 age limit," the NFL told CNBC.

Commissioner Roger Goodell struck a similarly cautious tone in a September 10 interview with CNBC Sport, saying the league would rather wait for stronger protections than rush into a partnership with prediction platforms.

A Bipartisan Coalition of States Backs New Jersey

The NFL's filing lands alongside a separate amicus brief from a bipartisan coalition of states, led by Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson and joined by the District of Columbia and 38 other states, according to The Hill. The coalition argues that lower courts are "hopelessly confused and divided" on whether states can enforce their own gambling laws against prediction market operators.

New Jersey petitioned the Supreme Court last month after losing at the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals in its case against Kalshi, amid a wider split among federal appeals courts on the issue. Kalshi and Polymarket, both backed in various ways by the Trump administration, maintain that their sports-related contracts are swaps subject to exclusive federal regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not to state gambling law.

Why It Matters for Bettors

The case could determine whether prediction markets continue to operate under a single federal framework nationwide or are folded into the same state-by-state licensing and consumer-protection rules that govern traditional sportsbooks. Sports Business Journal notes the NFL's intervention adds significant weight to that argument, given the league's direct stake in protecting game integrity.

The justices have not yet agreed to hear the case; it is set to be considered at a closed-door conference later this term.

In the meantime, bettors should expect continued patchwork enforcement, with some states already moving against prediction platforms while the broader legal question remains unresolved.

Players also liked

NFL Betting Sites

Sportsbook Promo Codes

Comparing Online Sportsbooks

FAQs

What did the NFL argue in its Supreme Court brief?: The NFL argued that sports-related prediction market contracts are effectively gambling products rather than financial swaps. In its view, they should be regulated by individual states, which oversee sports betting, rather than by the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That position challenges platforms that operate nationwide under federal commodities oversight and could affect how these contracts are offered.
Which case is the Supreme Court being asked to review?: The case stems from New Jersey's dispute with Kalshi, which sued the state to block enforcement of its gambling laws. Kalshi won at the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, and New Jersey has asked the Supreme Court to resolve a split among federal appeals courts on the issue.
Has the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case?: No, the Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear the case. The justices are expected to consider whether to take it up at a closed-door conference later this term. Only a share of petitions are granted, so a decision to hear the case is not guaranteed, and an announcement would likely follow the conference.