The NFL publicly says Kalshi’s sports contracts are gambling, while New Jersey seeks Supreme Court review.
Why it matters: The dispute could shape whether sports prediction markets operate under federal derivatives rules or face state gambling restrictions. The supplied materials do not confirm an NFL Supreme Court filing or the Court’s current action on New Jersey’s petition.
- CNBC reported the NFL’s position that sports prediction contracts should be regulated as gambling.
- New Jersey’s petition, docketed as Flaherty v. KalshiEX LLC, No. 26-299, asks the Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit’s April 6, 2026 ruling.
- The Third Circuit held that Kalshi showed a likelihood that federal law preempted New Jersey’s action while litigation continued.
- The NFL is seeking safeguards including a 21-year minimum age and limits on markets vulnerable to manipulation.
The NFL has publicly argued that contracts tied to football outcomes are sports wagers, not financial swaps subject exclusively to federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight. CNBC’s report on the NFL’s position does not, on the materials provided, establish that the league filed an amicus brief in the case.
New Jersey is asking the Supreme Court to review a Third Circuit decision favoring Kalshi. The New Jersey petition for a writ of certiorari argues that the Commodity Exchange Act and Dodd-Frank do not preempt state laws governing sports gambling.
The petition identifies the case as Flaherty v. KalshiEX LLC, No. 26-299. The supplied materials do not include a verified Supreme Court docket entry showing whether the petition has been distributed for conference, granted, denied or remains pending.
The Third Circuit’s April 6 opinion establishes that Kalshi had shown a likelihood that federal law preempted New Jersey’s action while the litigation proceeded. Kalshi operates a CFTC-designated contract market and says its sports products are federally regulated derivatives.
The NFL has also raised concerns about contracts tied to granular outcomes such as field goals, fumbles, injuries and officiating. It is seeking controls associated with traditional sports betting, including a 21-year minimum age; Kalshi has allowed customers 18 and older.
The supplied materials also include an Associated Press report about a Ninth Circuit action involving Nevada’s gaming laws and sports-event contracts. They do not identify the Ninth Circuit case, date or procedural posture, or provide the court’s opinion, so that account is not treated here as a verified merits holding.
By the numbers
- 21 - minimum bettor age the NFL is seeking
- 18 - minimum age Kalshi has allowed customers
- 2 - federal appeals courts cited in the supplied reporting, without enough primary material to characterize their holdings consistently
Yes, but: The materials confirm a reported NFL position, not an NFL amicus filing. They also do not provide a direct Supreme Court docket entry or the Ninth Circuit’s primary decision, so the case’s current Supreme Court status and the Ninth Circuit’s precise action remain unconfirmed here.