NFL files brief at US Supreme Court backing states over Kalshi in prediction markets fight

The National Football League filed an amicus brief on 8 October 2026 at the Supreme Court of the United States backing New Jersey in its dispute with Kalshi. The league argues that contracts on sporting events are not "swaps" and should be governed by state gaming laws, and warns that sports prediction markets threaten match integrity.

What brought the NFL to the Supreme Court over prediction markets

The legal dispute turns on differing interpretations of whether contracts on sporting events are swaps under the Dodd‑Frank Act. The Third Circuit blocked New Jersey in April from applying its gaming laws to Kalshi, while the Sixth and Ninth Circuits ruled in favour of states such as Ohio, Tennessee, California and Nevada. The split between the circuits has created regulatory uncertainty for the sports-betting industry and other stakeholders with gaming interests.

In its brief the NFL says the Sixth and Ninth Circuits "got it right" by allowing states to apply their rules to prediction markets. The central legal question is whether contracts on sporting events qualify as swaps under Dodd‑Frank, which would give exclusive jurisdiction to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Why the league says sports contracts are gambling, not swaps

In the amicus the NFL argues the statutory definition of "swap" must be read in its historical context and targeted at instruments created to hedge pre‑existing risk, for example a company protecting itself from interest-rate moves. The league says sports contracts do the opposite: they "create risk primarily for betting purposes." The brief recalls that when Congress enacted Dodd‑Frank in 2010, sports betting remained federally prohibited, which the NFL says makes it "inconceivable" that the text was meant to nationalise sports wagering under the guise of swaps.

Game integrity and relations with partner operators

The NFL has commercial partnerships with sports-betting operators Fanatics, FanDuel and DraftKings; each follows the league's list of prohibited wagers to protect integrity and provide consumer protections. All three operators nonetheless also list prediction markets, including in states without a regulated betting industry. The league has sent multiple notices to prediction markets requesting removal of markets it deems "objectionable" and susceptible to manipulation.

"Although the NFL and others have urged the Commission and the DCMs to adopt safeguards and rules for sports betting similar to the state‑regulated world, the Commission and the DCMs have so far taken a more laissez‑faire approach," the league's brief says.

The amicus also criticises that prediction markets have not accepted the NFL's "lists of prohibited bettors," a measure the league regards as key to mitigating insider‑information risk.

Criticism of the CFTC on staffing and self‑certification processes

The NFL includes concerns in its brief about the CFTC's supervisory capacity. According to the document, the Commission cut nearly 25% of its staff since January 2025 and had 543 employees as of September 2025. The league compares that figure with state agencies: the Pennsylvania and Nevada gaming boards each employ roughly 400 people.

The league says that lacking sufficient staff for oversight and enforcement, regulation cannot ensure integrity or consumer protection. It also criticises the self‑certification process that allows an operator to list contracts for trading on the next business day; the NFL says that mechanism, combined with the volume and novelty of many sports contracts, "provides not even basic integrity protections."

NFL's practical position and desired timetable

Commissioner Roger Goodell told CNBC in an interview he wants to see "stronger regulations" before the league would consider partnering with a prediction‑market operator. Still, in that same interview he described prediction markets as "potential partners."

The NFL seeks a resolution before the 2027 season because, the brief says, "billions" are wagered on NFL games via prediction markets. The league warns that prolonged delay would increase consumer harm and integrity risk. If the Supreme Court endorses the Sixth and Ninth Circuit approach, prediction markets would be subject to the same rules as traditional sportsbooks, which the NFL says would reassure the league and others concerned with integrity and responsible gambling.

Legal scenarios and next steps after the Supreme Court decision

If the Supreme Court adopts the Third Circuit's position, the CFTC would have exclusive jurisdiction over these contracts, and the NFL says it would then intensify efforts to persuade the Commission, designated contract markets (DCMs) and Congress to adopt stricter measures before the 2027 season.

For operators, platforms and state regulators the decision will have clear operational effects: state regulation would mean requirements on prohibited‑market lists, bettor controls, review processes and greater supervision resources. Exclusive CFTC regulation would maintain the current self‑certification framework the NFL criticised in its brief.

What operators and suppliers should review now

Technology and compliance vendors will need to prepare capabilities that satisfy both state requirements and federal oversight: market control lists, integration of prohibited‑bettor lists, market auditability and fast contract‑take‑down processes. Operators active in multiple states and platforms that permit self‑certifications should design workflows to respond to rapid reviews by the competent authority.

The NFL's petition at the Supreme Court adds pressure for a prompt resolution. The case's next legal steps will be closely watched by state regulators, the CFTC, operators like Kalshi and Polymarket and the league's commercial partners Fanatics, FanDuel and DraftKings.