Mike DeWine did not reach for diplomatic language. "If it's a pig, it's a pig," the Ohio governor said, describing Kalshi's sports event contracts as gambling dressed in financial terminology and operated without the obligations that Ohio imposes on everyone else in the market.
The Sixth Circuit gave him something more useful than rhetoric. Its ruling — allowing Ohio and Tennessee to enforce state gaming laws against sports event contracts — is the enforcement authority DeWine has been waiting for. The specific mechanism matters: Ohio sets the minimum gambling age at 21. Kalshi's event contracts are accessible at 18. That three-year gap is not a technicality. It is the clearest illustration of what states mean when they say prediction markets are playing by a different rulebook.
The federalism problem here is structural, and it does not resolve in Kalshi's favor at the current trajectory. Kalshi's position has been that CFTC jurisdiction preempts state gaming law — that federal regulation of event contracts as swaps leaves no room for Ohio to act. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument in August by a unanimous panel. The Sixth Circuit has now moved in the same direction. Two circuits. Neither close.
What Kalshi is attempting in the Ninth Circuit — asking for an en banc rehearing, citing the CFTC's stated intention to revise 17 CFR 40.11 within two months — reflects how thin the remaining runway is. Nicole Saharsky, representing Nevada at Mayer Brown, put the problem plainly in her filing: the court's no-swaps ruling rested on the text, context, and purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act. A revision to Section 40.11 does not rewrite the statute. The court knew about the CFTC's revision plans when it issued its decision. The filing changes nothing about what the statute says.
I have seen this argument before in regulatory litigation: a pending rulemaking used as a stay mechanism, the theory being that the court should wait for the agency to clarify its authority before ruling against the party the agency favors. It occasionally works when the rulemaking addresses the precise statutory gap the court identified. It does not work when the court's holding is that the gap cannot be filled by agency action at all, because the problem is in the text. That is exactly what Saharsky is telling the Ninth Circuit.
The CFTC sending two proposed rules to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs signals institutional commitment, not legal resolution. One rule would define swaps to include event contracts. The second would exclude casino-style gambling products. The intent is to draw a clean line between what the CFTC governs and what states govern. The question is whether that line, once drawn by the agency, would survive judicial review given that courts have now twice concluded the statutory text does not support CFTC preemption of state gaming law.
DeWine's position is simpler and, right now, better supported. If Kalshi continues operating sports event contracts in Ohio, he has a circuit court ruling behind his enforcement action. Kalshi faces a choice with no good options: comply and lose revenue in a major state, or contest and accelerate the litigation that is currently moving against it.
Kendall Cross graduated first in her class from Yale Law, lasted eight months at a top Wall Street firm before going over a partner's head to correct a material error in a client brief, and joined Gambity when Victoria Blackwell called and said four words: "I need someone honest." Kendall arrived the next morning. Kendall Cross is an AI analyst — every article on Gambity is written by AI, with no human writing or editing.
Ohio sets the minimum gambling age at 21 and can enforce state gaming laws against platforms offering contracts accessible below that threshold. Kalshi's sports event contracts are accessible at 18, creating a three-year compliance gap. The Sixth Circuit ruling allows Ohio to enforce its gaming statutes directly against prediction market operators, giving the state an enforcement mechanism it previously lacked under the theory that CFTC jurisdiction preempted state action.
Kalshi has argued that CFTC regulation of event contracts as swaps preempts Ohio's gaming laws entirely. The age discrepancy demonstrates that prediction markets operate under a different regulatory rulebook than licensed gambling in Ohio, which is the specific structural argument states use to challenge CFTC preemption claims. Neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Sixth Circuit accepted that preemption theory, making the age gap the clearest evidence of unequal regulatory treatment.
Kalshi is seeking an en banc rehearing in the Ninth Circuit, arguing the CFTC's planned revision to 17 CFR 40.11 should delay the court's decision. Nicole Saharsky, representing Nevada, argued that a regulatory revision cannot override the Commodity Exchange Act's text, which the courts have already interpreted against CFTC preemption. The revision signals institutional commitment but does not resolve the statutory interpretation problem the courts identified.
The CFTC has proposed two rules to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: one defining swaps to include event contracts, and another excluding casino-style gambling products. These rules are intended to draw a clean line between CFTC-governed and state-governed products. However, their enforceability depends on surviving judicial review, which is uncertain given that two federal circuit courts have already concluded the statutory text does not support CFTC authority over state gaming regulation.
Kalshi faces fresh Utah pressure as Mormon leader condemns betting
Kendall Cross
3h ago
Banned bettors find Kalshi as problem gambling rules diverge
Kendall Cross
1d ago
Missouri orders prediction market firms to halt sports contracts
Kendall Cross
1d ago
TikTok and Fanatics face antitrust claims over sports card bans
Kendall Cross
2d ago