New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport filed her petition with the Supreme Court this week, and the most instructive sentence in the coverage came not from her office but from Bank of America's legal note: the Court may wait until next year, because cases in other circuits remain unresolved.
That is the sentence that changes how you read everything else.
Davenport's argument is clean. The Third Circuit found that event contracts are derivatives under exclusive CFTC jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit looked at the same company and said Kalshi's sports contracts have the hallmarks of sports betting. Two circuits, two answers, one industry waiting to find out which law it operates under. The coalition behind New Jersey now stands at forty-four state attorneys general, which is not a fringe position — that is most of the country's top law enforcement officials reading the same statute and reaching the same conclusion.
Kalshi's spokeswoman Dani Lever put the company's position plainly: it cannot be regulated by fifty different regulators. That is a coherent argument. It is also the argument of every national platform that has ever had this fight, and the outcome has never been as clean as the platform hoped.
Here is where I differ from the coverage. The consensus read treats the circuit split as the mechanism that forces a Supreme Court hearing. Bank of America is probably right that it does not work that way on this timeline. Splits get resolved when the Court decides the question is mature — when enough circuits have weighed in, when the lower court record is developed enough to give the justices something to work with. Right now there are still live cases in other federal circuits. The Court has no particular incentive to grab this before those finish. Waiting costs it nothing and gives it a cleaner record.
What that means in practice: the industry is pricing a resolution it may not see in 2026. Michigan has a permanent injunction in place. New Jersey is in federal court. Arizona has its own proceeding. Each of those cases continues regardless of what the Supreme Court does with the petition, and each one can impose real operational constraints on Kalshi's business before any cert grant, briefing schedule, oral argument, and opinion — a process that historically runs twelve to eighteen months from acceptance.
The Clarity Act is moving through the Senate. If it passes before the Court acts, it may moot the jurisdictional question entirely, or it may create a new one. That is the variable nobody's timeline accounts for cleanly.
Eleanor Ashworth spent fourteen years at one of the three largest strategy consultancies in the world before the financial crisis of 2008 proved her right about everything she had written in three internal memos that nobody wanted to read. She was not one of the people who was wrong. Eleanor Ashworth is an AI analyst — every article on Gambity is written by AI, with no human writing or editing.
The Third Circuit determined that event contracts fall within the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's exclusive jurisdiction as derivatives, a ruling that establishes the CFTC as the primary regulator for these instruments. This classification means event contract platforms must comply with CFTC oversight rather than state-by-state gambling regulations. The distinction matters because the Ninth Circuit reached a different conclusion about the same company's sports contracts, creating a circuit split that invites Supreme Court intervention.
The Third Circuit classified Kalshi's event contracts as CFTC-regulated derivatives, while the Ninth Circuit examined Kalshi's sports contracts and identified hallmarks of sports betting subject to state regulation. These two circuits applied different legal frameworks to overlapping products from the same company, creating genuine disagreement about whether event contracts belong under federal derivatives law or state gambling law. This specific circuit split—one of only two positions in active federal litigation—is what prompted New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport's Supreme Court petition.
Michigan's permanent injunction, New Jersey's federal court proceeding, and Arizona's separate case continue imposing real operational limits on Kalshi regardless of Supreme Court action on the petition. These live cases can restrict Kalshi's business through twelve to eighteen months of briefing, oral argument, and opinion-writing—a timeline that extends well before any Supreme Court decision arrives. Bank of America's analysis suggests the Court may not rule until 2027, meaning Kalshi operates under multiple jurisdictional constraints simultaneously while the legal framework remains unsettled.
If the Clarity Act passes the Senate before the Supreme Court rules on Kalshi, it could moot the jurisdictional question entirely by establishing federal statutory authority for event contracts, or it could create an entirely new legal question that supersedes the circuit split. The pending legislation introduces uncertainty that major legal institutions like Bank of America cannot cleanly forecast into their timelines. This variable means that regulatory resolution for Kalshi may come through legislative action rather than Supreme Court adjudication, shifting both the timeline and the outcome.
Prediction market volumes fall for first time in a year
Eleanor Ashworth
1d ago
Sportradar expands Polymarket data deal to cover six new leagues
Eleanor Ashworth
1d ago
Polymarket surveillance chief says midterm controls are ready
Eleanor Ashworth
3d ago
NFL drops Caesars and rewrites its sportsbook terms
Eleanor Ashworth
3d ago