Kalshi plans crude oil perpetuals as sports case heads to Supreme Court

Reuters reported Wednesday that Kalshi intends to file for US crude oil perpetual contracts — instruments that would let traders hold continuous positions on the direction of oil prices without a fixed expiry date. The filing has not yet been submitted, and its timing relative to the company's ongoing legal exposure is not incidental.

The Ninth Circuit ruled last week that Kalshi's sports contracts are sports betting, not federally protected swaps. The decision directly conflicts with a Third Circuit ruling that went the other way. CFTC spokesman Zach Fulton said publicly that the panel "erred" and that the split "calls out for resolution by the Supreme Court." That is not a bureaucrat hedging. That is a preview of a certiorari petition.

Here is where I part from the consensus read: most of the commentary I have seen treats the crude oil move as a pivot away from the sports contract litigation, a kind of regulatory arbitrage — if the courts won't let you call sports bets swaps, find a product that actually is a swap. I don't think that's where this lands.

Crude oil perpetuals are not a retreat. They are a demonstration. Kalshi is telling the CFTC, the states, and anyone watching the Supreme Court docket that the exchange's core competency is not sports outcomes — it is continuous price discovery across any domain a regulator will permit. The sports contract fight was always partly about establishing the outer boundary of what a designated contract market can offer. The crude oil filing redraws attention to the inner boundary, where there is almost no dispute that Kalshi belongs.

The risk in that strategy is timing. The Ninth Circuit's reasoning — that the substance of the trade matters more than its structural classification — could be imported by a skeptical court into the energy context if Kalshi's products there ever look more like speculation on event outcomes than genuine commodity price exposure. I have seen regulatory frameworks stretched this way before: a regulator loses on a narrow question and returns with a broader theory. Nevada Gaming Control Board Chairman Mike Dreitzer was not speaking only about sports when he said that a product does not change its nature because a company renames it.

My own bias runs toward downside scenarios, and I am weighting against it here deliberately. The upside case for Kalshi in commodity markets is genuinely strong. A CFTC-registered exchange offering perpetual crude contracts has a clear statutory home. The legal ambiguity that plagued the sports contracts does not travel cleanly to energy derivatives, and the commission's incentive to protect its own jurisdiction over commodity markets is, on this particular product, aligned with Kalshi rather than against it.

What moves this from interesting to consequential is the Supreme Court arithmetic. If the Court takes the Kalshi sports case — and the circuit split makes that likely rather than possible — the justices will be looking at a company that is simultaneously fighting for the right to offer one category of contract while quietly building a product line that needs no such fight. That posture tends to read well to courts deciding how much deference a regulated entity deserves.

Prediction market contracts on the Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari exist and are, in my view, underweighting the probability that the Court takes the case before the end of the current term.

About the analyst

James Harrington

Senior Risk Analyst

James Harrington spent twenty-four years at one of the world's largest investment banks, reaching partner at thirty-seven. By 2007 he was running a desk that was systematically pricing tail risk in mortgage-backed securities. He was right for eighteen months before the crisis arrived. James Harrington 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 do perpetual futures contracts differ from standard commodity futures?

Perpetual futures allow traders to hold continuous positions on price direction without a fixed expiration date, unlike standard commodity futures which expire on set dates. Kalshi plans to offer US crude oil perpetuals, enabling ongoing exposure to oil price movements. These instruments are structured as swaps under CFTC jurisdiction rather than time-limited futures contracts.

Why did the Ninth Circuit rule Kalshi's sports contracts are betting, not swaps?

The Ninth Circuit determined that the substance of Kalshi's sports contracts — wagering on event outcomes — constitutes sports betting rather than federally protected commodity swaps, regardless of structural classification. This reasoning directly conflicts with a Third Circuit ruling favoring Kalshi, creating a circuit split that CFTC spokesman Zach Fulton said "calls out for resolution by the Supreme Court." The Ninth Circuit prioritized what trades actually do over how companies legally categorize them.

What happens to Kalshi's regulatory exposure if the Supreme Court takes the sports case?

If the Supreme Court accepts Kalshi's sports contract case, the Court's reasoning on substance-versus-form could be imported into scrutiny of Kalshi's energy derivatives offerings, creating risk that crude oil perpetuals face similar classification challenges. Regulatory frameworks can expand after narrow losses, as Nevada Gaming Control Board Chairman Mike Dreitzer warned when stating products do not change nature through renaming. The timing of Kalshi's crude oil filing creates exposure to conflicting judicial theories across two markets simultaneously.

Where would Kalshi crude oil perpetuals trade and how might they be priced?

Kalshi crude oil perpetuals would trade on a CFTC-registered designated contract market, with prices reflecting continuous commodity price discovery rather than event outcomes. The legal framework for energy derivatives has clearer statutory home under CFTC jurisdiction than sports contracts, and the commission's incentive to protect commodity market oversight aligns with approving such products. Real-time crude pricing would anchor contract valuations to underlying WTI or Brent benchmarks traded on CME and ICE platforms.

Risk