The National Football League has formally asked the Supreme Court to intervene in a legal battle over who gets to regulate prediction markets, contending that these platforms should be subject to state gambling laws rather than federal financial oversight.
In an amicus brief filed Thursday, the league weighed in on a dispute between Kalshi, a leading prediction market, and the state of New Jersey. New Jersey has petitioned the justices to review conflicting appellate decisions on whether such markets fall under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or state regulators.
The NFL argued that the current legal uncertainty is damaging its ability to protect the integrity of the game and consumers. The league wrote: “This split of authority, and the consequent uncertainty about the regulatory oversight of sports wagering on DCMs [designated contract markets], pose a significant challenge to the NFL’s game-integrity and consumer-protection efforts.”
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental classification question. Kalshi and other prediction markets argue that their products are financial instruments called “swaps,” which are regulated by the CFTC under federal law. States, however, view these bets as gambling and insist they have the authority to police them under their own statutes.
The Trump administration has sided with the prediction markets, with the CFTC filing lawsuits against states that have tried to enforce their gambling laws against platforms like Kalshi. That stance has drawn criticism from state officials and now from the NFL.
The league suggested that the situation would be less concerning if the CFTC and prediction markets adopted the same safeguards and oversight as state and tribal regulators and traditional sportsbooks. “But that is not what is happening today,” the brief stated.
The NFL specifically pointed to the CFTC’s hands-off approach, noting that it has not required prediction markets to implement the same prohibited wagers that the league mandates for sportsbooks, nor has it raised the minimum age to 21. Instead, the platforms allow users as young as 18 to bet.
“Billions of dollars will be bet on NFL games through prediction markets each season, and any delay from the Court will result in increasing consumer harm and risk to game integrity,” the league warned, urging the justices to act before another season passes.
The NFL also endorsed the reasoning of the 6th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal, which sided with states in similar cases, concluding that prediction market wagers should not be classified as swaps under federal law.
The league’s filing comes as a bipartisan coalition of 39 states also submitted a brief Thursday backing New Jersey’s position and urging the Supreme Court to take up the case. That group argues that states are best positioned to regulate prediction markets, a stance that aligns with the NFL’s concerns.
The case has drawn significant attention from both financial and sports betting industries, with implications for how these emerging platforms operate nationwide. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant certiorari.
