By Greg Stohr | Updated on Oct 08, 2026 at 07:43 PM
The National Football League urged the US Supreme Court to allow state regulation of prediction markets in a stance putting it at odds with the Trump administration in a high-stakes clash.
In a court filing Thursday, the NFL told the justices that the “laissez-faire” approach federal regulators are taking toward prediction markets could allow “unscrupulous actors to cause mischief, trade on inside information, and harm game integrity.” The NFL urged the court to take up an pending appeal by New Jersey regulators in a clash involving Kalshi Inc.
Read More: Kalshi Speeds Toward Supreme Court Showdown Over Sports Betting
The NFL has been warier of prediction markets than other major sports leagues, holding off making any alliances. It’s the only major professional sports league to weigh in at the Supreme Court in the New Jersey case so far.
Kalshi said in response to the filing that the company’s top priority is the integrity of its markets.
“The CFTC’s ongoing rulemaking addresses many of the NFL’s supposed concerns. And those rules sit atop the same comprehensive system of federal enforcement that protects trillions of dollars of transactions in US markets,” Kalshi spokesperson Elisabeth Diana said in a statement.
Kalshi’s chief rival, Polymarket, said it shares the NFL’s commitment to “preserving the integrity of the game” and has built advanced market surveillance tools. Polymarket also said it is working with regulators on a federal framework.
President Donald Trump has embraced the fast-growing industry and said in May that he backs the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as the sole regulator.
The key legal question is whether prediction-market contracts are “swaps,” which the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act put under the exclusive regulatory ambit of the CFTC. New Jersey and the NFL contend prediction markets are a form of gambling, which states have long had authority to regulate.
The NFL told the high court that the CFTC and prediction markets have refused to impose needed safeguards, including bans on certain types of wagers and a requirement that people placing bets be at least 21.
“Despite the NFL’s repeated overtures, the commission and DCMs like Kalshi thus far have resisted the commonsense measures that the NFL has requested,” the NFL argued, referencing a designated contract market.
Under their normal scheduling practices, the justices could say as soon as December whether they will hear the New Jersey case in the nine-month term that runs through June. The court could also seek Trump administration input, a step that would almost certainly push the clash into the 2027-28 term.
The case is Flaherty v. KalshiEX, 26-299 .