NFL backs New Jersey Supreme Court petition on sports prediction markets alongside 40 states

A brief has been submitted by the NFL in support of New Jersey's bid for US Supreme Court review of whether platforms including Kalshi can sell sports-related prediction market contracts while sidestepping state gambling statutes. Jennifer Davenport, the state's attorney general, lodged the petition on 2 September. The report gives no indication of when the court will decide on granting review.

The report states that 40 states support New Jersey's push. A similar submission from attorneys general of 39 states plus Washington, D.C. was filed a day before the NFL's brief. Per the state, the jurisdictional dispute is unfolding across no fewer than 20 states.

What the case turns on is whether such contracts constitute unlawful sports wagers under state statutes or are financial products subject to federal regulation through the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The report quotes the NFL's brief saying Kalshi and other designated contract markets describe their sports-related event contracts as "swaps" under federal law, placing them outside state sports betting rules. According to the league, that stance would let operators sell NFL-related event contracts "without regard to state law."

In remarks cited by the report, Davenport said Kalshi and similar firms present themselves as offering lawful sports betting nationwide while declining to abide by any state's gambling statutes. Her further argument was that gambling has a long history of state regulation aimed at problems such as compulsive gambling, betting by minors and insider trading connected to sports events.

Kalshi rejects that reading and maintains its offerings are federally supervised. Dani Lever, a spokeswoman, described the company as "an open, nationwide financial exchange" that "cannot be regulated by 50 different regulators." She added that the Third Circuit and the District of New Jersey both ruled for Kalshi on the basis that the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction preempts state law.

The report notes that prediction markets are active across every state, among them jurisdictions that have banned gambling in other forms. It adds that federal courts are presently blocking multiple state gambling statutes, and that dozens of lawsuits are in progress. Should the justices accept the case, it may clarify whether sports-related event contracts stay chiefly governed by federal commodities rules or whether states may apply their own gambling laws to them.