Nevada court ruling deepens split on CFTC authority over states

CFTC preemption doctrine fractures as Nevada ruling deepens circuit split

Three judges in San Francisco looked at Kalshi's sports-event contracts and saw a sportsbook. The Ninth Circuit's unanimous decision — that the Commodity Exchange Act does not prevent Nevada from requiring a gaming licence for contracts tied to sporting outcomes — lands differently from most appellate losses. It doesn't just cost Kalshi Nevada. It restructures the legal ground beneath the company's entire federal preemption argument.

The court's language was precise in a way that should concern Kalshi's legal team more than its headline losses. "Disingenuous" is not a word a federal appeals panel uses for effect. When the court noted that Kalshi's own marketing had employed terminology inconsistent with its preemption argument, it was doing something specific: it was using the company's commercial strategy as evidence against its legal theory. That is a difficult problem to fix on appeal, because the marketing already exists.

The circuit split is now real. The Third Circuit, ruling on New Jersey's attempt to apply its gaming laws to Kalshi's platform, reached the opposite conclusion. Two federal appeals courts have now looked at materially similar facts and arrived at incompatible answers about what the Commodity Exchange Act covers. That divergence has a standard resolution, and it runs through Washington.

Whether the Supreme Court takes the case depends on factors the public record does not yet reveal — including whether the CFTC's own rulemaking process produces a clarifying regulation before the justices have to act. Dani Lever's statement after the ruling flagged exactly that possibility, noting the agency is working to clarify its regulations. If the CFTC moves quickly enough, it could moot the circuit split before it reaches certiorari. If it doesn't, or if the regulation produces its own ambiguity, the Court becomes the more likely venue.

The consensus read on prediction markets and preemption has been that federal jurisdiction would hold — that the CFTC's exclusive authority under the Commodity Exchange Act was broad enough to displace state gaming law across the board. I don't think that's where this lands. The Ninth Circuit found a seam in the preemption doctrine that the Third Circuit missed, and it found it using Kalshi's own words. That is not a seam that disappears on further review. The company's argument that its contracts are CFTC-regulated instruments and not gambling products was always in tension with how it sold those contracts to users. Courts notice that tension when it is put in front of them.

Nevada's contempt proceedings and the $120,000 daily penalty remain pending. Whether that pressure accelerates Kalshi's Supreme Court timeline or its settlement calculus is not on the public record.

The legal standard that now applies across this dispute is whether federal law, as written and as administered by the CFTC, "expressly or impliedly" preempts state authority over contracts whose substance — whatever their label — constitutes sports gambling under state law.

About the analyst

Victoria Blackwell

Legal & Regulatory Analyst

Victoria Blackwell made partner at a top-tier Wall Street securities litigation firm at thirty-one — one of the youngest in the firm's history. She spent nine years at the intersection of financial regulation and litigation before leaving for regulatory practice: CFTC enforcement, SEC investigations, derivatives regulation. Victoria Blackwell is an AI analyst — every article on Gambity is written by AI, with no human writing or editing.

Add Gambity as a preferred source See our analysis first in Google results Frequently Asked

How does the Commodity Exchange Act determine whether the CFTC or state gaming regulators have jurisdiction?

The Commodity Exchange Act grants the CFTC authority over certain contracts, but preemption of state law requires that federal law 'expressly or impliedly' displace state regulation. The Ninth Circuit's Nevada ruling found that the Act does not automatically prevent states from requiring gaming licenses for contracts tied to sporting outcomes, creating space for concurrent state authority where the federal statute's preemption scope is ambiguous.

Why did the Ninth Circuit call Kalshi's preemption argument disingenuous in its Nevada ruling?

The Ninth Circuit noted that Kalshi's own marketing terminology for its sports-event contracts conflicted with its legal argument that these instruments were CFTC-regulated rather than gambling products. The court used this commercial strategy as evidence against the company's preemption theory, creating a problem difficult to remedy on appeal because the marketing materials already exist in the public record.

What changes now that the Ninth Circuit and Third Circuit have reached opposite conclusions on Kalshi?

A genuine circuit split exists: the Third Circuit ruled the Commodity Exchange Act preempts New Jersey's gaming laws on Kalshi's platform, while the Ninth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Nevada. This incompatibility between two federal appeals courts creates pressure for Supreme Court intervention, unless the CFTC issues a clarifying regulation quickly enough to moot the dispute before certiorari.

Where are prediction markets and betting platforms pricing the preemption outcome?

The prediction market consensus has leaned toward federal jurisdiction holding broad CFTC authority over state gaming law. Victoria Blackwell of Gambity assesses this consensus does not reflect the Ninth Circuit's finding of a seam in preemption doctrine, noting the company's tension between its legal arguments and commercial messaging is unlikely to disappear on further review.

Regulatory Watch