Federal law

Federal statutes

Law	Enacted	What it does
Sports and online betting
Interstate Wire Act 18 U.S.C. § 1084	Sep 13, 1961	Makes it a federal crime for someone in the business of betting or wagering to knowingly use a wire communication facility to send bets, wagering information, or wire communications that pay out winnings across state or international lines on a sporting event or contest. It applies regardless of state law and does not itself grant immunity from state prosecution. Two Justice Department opinions reversed each other on whether the ban also reaches non-sports gambling (such as state online lotteries and multi-state online poker); the First Circuit settled the question in 2021, holding the Act is limited to sports wagering.[1],[2] History (3) Sep 20, 2011 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion concludes the Wire Act's prohibitions apply only to bets on a sporting event or contest, clearing the way for state-run interstate/online lottery transactions.[3] Nov 2, 2018 OLC reverses course, opining that all of Section 1084(a)'s prohibitions except one reach all forms of interstate gambling, not just sports; DOJ publicly releases the opinion in January 2019.[4] Jan 20, 2021 1st Circuit (New Hampshire Lottery Commission v. Rosen) holds the Wire Act's prohibitions are limited to bets or wagers on sporting events or contests, affirming the 2011 reading and effectively nullifying the 2018 opinion nationwide.[2]
Sports Bribery Act 18 U.S.C. § 224	Jun 6, 1964	Officially titled "Bribery in sporting contests," it is a federal crime to carry out, attempt, or conspire to carry out a bribery scheme, effectuated through interstate or foreign commerce, meant to influence a publicly announced amateur or professional sporting contest. Violations carry a fine and up to 5 years in prison. The statute expressly leaves state and local anti-bribery laws and jurisdiction in place alongside it.[5]
Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) 28 U.S.C. §§ 3701-3704 Struck down	Oct 28, 1992	Formerly made it unlawful for a governmental entity to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license or authorize by law, and for a person to do so under a governmental entity's law or compact, a lottery, sweepstakes or other betting scheme based on competitive games involving amateur or professional athletes. It grandfathered Nevada's existing sports-betting industry, a few other states with pre-existing sports lotteries (Oregon, Delaware, Montana), an unused one-year window for a New Jersey casino-only scheme, and pari-mutuel animal racing and jai alai. The Supreme Court struck down the core state-authorization ban in Murphy v. NCAA (2018) as unconstitutional commandeering of state legislatures under the Tenth Amendment and held the rest of the statute wasn't severable, so the whole law is now unenforceable even though its text remains in the U.S. Code.[6],[7],[8] History (1) May 14, 2018 Supreme Court decides Murphy v. NCAA, striking down PASPA's anti-authorization provision and the rest of the statute as inseverable from it.[9]
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) 31 U.S.C. §§ 5361-5367	Oct 13, 2006	Bars a business in the gambling trade from knowingly accepting payments — credit, electronic fund transfers, checks, or similar instruments — connected to "unlawful Internet gambling," meaning a bet made over the internet that is illegal under the federal or state law applicable where it is placed, received, or initiated. It does not itself declare any form of gambling legal or illegal and expressly does not alter existing federal, state or tribal gambling law; instead it directs Treasury and the Federal Reserve to require payment systems to identify and block these "restricted transactions," implemented jointly as Regulation GG (12 CFR Part 233) and 31 CFR Part 132. It excludes from "bet or wager" fantasy-sports and simulation games meeting statutory skill-based criteria: prizes fixed and disclosed in advance regardless of entry fees or number of participants, outcomes reflecting participants' knowledge and skill and determined predominantly by accumulated statistics of multiple real-world athletes across multiple events, and no winning outcome based on a single team's real-world score or a single athlete's single performance.[10],[11],[12] History (1) Nov 18, 2008 Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board adopt the final joint rule implementing UIGEA (Regulation GG, 12 CFR Part 233, and the parallel 31 CFR Part 132), requiring non-exempt participants in designated payment systems to have written policies to identify and block restricted transactions.[12]
Prediction markets
Commodity Exchange Act Event-Contract "Special Rule" 7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C); CFTC Rule 40.11, 17 CFR § 40.11	2010	Lets the CFTC find that an event contract or swap based on an excluded commodity is "contrary to the public interest" — and bar a registered exchange from listing or clearing it — if it involves terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, activity unlawful under state or federal law, or similar activity the Commission designates by rule, following a 90-day review that starts when the Commission notifies the exchange of a potential violation. Added by Section 745(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, it is the statutory hook federal regulators and courts have used to question whether CFTC-registered sports and election event contracts (offered by Kalshi and similar exchanges) amount to gambling; the broader litigation and state-federal jurisdictional dispute over that question is tracked separately from this entry. The CFTC adopted implementing Rule 40.11 in 2011 and, as of this research, had not finalized a pending 2026 proposal to rewrite it.[13],[14] History (1) Jun 10, 2026 CFTC publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Rule 40.11 and add a new Appendix F to Part 40, defining "involve" and "gaming" and setting out a public-interest, multi-factor, contract-by-contract review process; comments were due July 27, 2026, and no final rule had issued as of this research.[15]
Tribal gaming
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721	Oct 17, 1988	Establishes the federal framework for gaming on Indian lands, created after the Supreme Court's Cabazon decision, and gives tribes the exclusive right to regulate gaming where federal law doesn't specifically prohibit it and the state doesn't prohibit it as a matter of criminal law and public policy. Class III gaming (casino-style games) is lawful only under a tribal ordinance and a Tribal-State compact approved by the Secretary of the Interior; a state must negotiate a requested compact in good faith, and a tribe can sue in federal court if it doesn't, ultimately triggering Secretarial procedures if mediation fails. Aside from agreed regulatory-cost assessments, states cannot tax tribal gaming or its operators.[16],[17]
Horse racing
Interstate Horseracing Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3007	1978	Lets states cooperate in interstate pari-mutuel wagering on horse races by requiring consent from the host racetrack, the horsemen's group, and the host state before an "interstate off-track wager" can lawfully be accepted from another state. Congress's stated policy is that states should have primary responsibility for deciding what gambling is legal within their borders, while the federal government prevents one state's policy from being undermined by another's. A 2000 amendment (Pub. L. 106-553) extended the definition of "interstate off-track wager" to wagers placed by telephone or other electronic media, which is the statutory basis most licensed advance deposit wagering (ADW) platforms rely on today.[18],[19] History (1) Dec 21, 2000 Pub. L. 106-553 amends the definition of "interstate off-track wager" to include wagers placed or transmitted by an individual in one state via telephone or other electronic media, enabling account/advance-deposit wagering.[19]
Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 15 U.S.C. §§ 3051-3060 (Pub. L. 116-260, Div. FF, Title XII)	Dec 27, 2020	Created the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA), a private, FTC-supervised self-regulatory nonprofit, to write and enforce nationwide anti-doping/medication-control and racetrack-safety rules for thoroughbred racing, preempting conflicting state racing-commission rules within its jurisdiction and requiring covered persons to register and comply with its rules. The FTC has broad oversight: it must approve or disapprove each HISA rule after public comment, and civil sanctions HISA imposes can be appealed to the FTC through an administrative law judge. HISA contracted with an anti-doping enforcement agency (operating as HIWU, the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit) to run testing, education and adjudication for covered horses, persons and races; the program applies only prospectively and doesn't limit separate state or federal criminal and animal cruelty laws.[20],[21]
Criminal enforcement
Johnson Act (Gambling Devices Transportation Act) 15 U.S.C. §§ 1171-1178	Jan 2, 1951	Bans interstate shipment of slot machines and other devices meeting the statutory definition of a "gambling device" into a state unless that state has exempted itself by law, the devices are going to licensed gambling establishments where the activity is legal, or a state statute specifically lists the device as lawful there. A 1962 amendment (Gambling Devices Act of 1962, Pub. L. 87-840) broadened the "gambling device" definition and added a federal registration requirement for manufacturers and distributors. The section does not limit the FTC's separate authority over such devices.[22],[23]
Travel Act 18 U.S.C. § 1952	Sep 13, 1961	Bars traveling in interstate or foreign commerce, or using the mail or a facility of such commerce, with intent to distribute the proceeds of an "unlawful activity," commit violence to further it, or promote, manage, carry on or facilitate it, followed by an act toward that end. "Unlawful activity" includes any gambling business that violates state or federal law, alongside liquor, narcotics, prostitution, extortion, bribery, arson, and money-laundering offenses. It gives federal prosecutors a tool against interstate gambling operations that break state gambling law, on top of whatever state charges apply, and does not preempt state law.[24]
Wagering Paraphernalia Act 18 U.S.C. § 1953	Sep 13, 1961	Prohibits knowingly shipping betting records, slips, tickets, or similar wagering paraphernalia across state or international lines for use in bookmaking, sports betting pools, or numbers, policy, bolita or similar games. It exempts legal pari-mutuel racing materials, materials for sports wagers moving into a state where that betting is legal, newspapers, lawful state lottery materials, bank/credit-union savings-promotion raffle materials, and shipments to a foreign lottery that country authorizes. Common carriers acting in the ordinary course of business are not liable, and the section grants no immunity from state prosecution.[25]
Illegal Gambling Business Act 18 U.S.C. § 1955	Oct 15, 1970	Makes it a federal crime to conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of a "gambling business" that (1) violates the law of the state or locality where it operates, (2) involves five or more people running it, and (3) has operated for more than 30 days or grossed over $2,000 in a single day. Property used in the business, including cash, can be seized and forfeited to the United States. It exempts certain tax-exempt charitable bingo-style games and bank/credit-union savings-promotion raffles.[26]
Taxes and banking
Federal Wagering Excise and Occupational Taxes 26 U.S.C. §§ 4401, 4411	1951	Imposes a federal excise tax on wagers accepted in the United States: 0.25% of the amount wagered if the wager is authorized under the law of the state where accepted, 2% if it is not. The tax is owed by whoever is in the business of accepting the wager, operates a wagering pool or lottery, or (if required to register and hasn't) accepts wagers for someone else. A separate annual federal occupational ("special") tax applies to anyone liable for the excise tax or who receives wagers on their behalf: $500 per year generally, or $50 per year for those taxed only on state-authorized wagers.[27],[28] History (1) Dec 1, 1974 A 1974 amendment raises the annual occupational tax from $50 to $500 for persons liable under the general rule, effective for wagers placed on or after December 1, 1974.[28]
Bank Secrecy Act — Casino Rules 31 U.S.C. § 5312; 31 CFR Part 1021	Oct 26, 1970	Treats a casino, gambling casino or gaming establishment with more than $1,000,000 in annual gaming revenue as a "financial institution" under the Bank Secrecy Act if it is state- or locally-licensed, or is an Indian gaming operation under IGRA beyond Class I. FinCEN's implementing regulations (31 CFR Part 1021) require covered casinos to file a Currency Transaction Report for currency transactions (cash-in or cash-out) over $10,000 in a single gaming day, file a Suspicious Activity Report for transactions of $5,000 or more they know, suspect or have reason to suspect are suspicious, and maintain a written, risk-based anti-money-laundering compliance program with a designated compliance officer, staff training, and independent testing.[29],[30],[31]
Federal Income Tax Treatment of Gambling Winnings and Losses 26 U.S.C. § 165(d); 26 U.S.C. §§ 6041, 6041A		Gambling winnings are taxable income, and under IRC § 165(d) losses from wagering transactions are deductible only against gains from wagering, never against other income. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. 119-21, § 70114) cut that deduction further for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025: a taxpayer may now deduct only 90% of wagering losses (still capped at wagering gains for the year), with the lost 10% not allowed as a carryforward — meaning a gambler who wins and loses the same amount in a year can still owe tax on "phantom" income. The same law (§ 70433) raised the information-reporting threshold for gambling winnings reported on Form W-2G (slot jackpots, bingo, keno, etc.) and other third-party payments from the old $600/$1,200/$1,500 figures to a uniform $2,000 for payments made after December 31, 2025, indexed for inflation starting in 2027.[32],[33] History (1) Jul 4, 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act enacted; § 70114 caps the wagering-loss deduction at 90% of losses (allowed only against wagering gains) effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025, and § 70433 raises information-reporting thresholds, including the W-2G threshold, to $2,000 effective for payments after Dec. 31, 2025.[32],[33]

Prediction-market dispute

An "event contract" is a cash-settled derivative that pays $1 if a stated event happens and $0 if it doesn't, letting someone trade on anything from an election outcome to the weather. Kalshi, a CFTC-registered exchange since 2020, used that structure to self-certify sports-outcome contracts in January 2025 and expanded to single-game and prop-style contracts the next month, relying on a process that lets a registered exchange list a new contract without advance CFTC approval. Robinhood began routing customers into Kalshi's sports contracts in March 2025, and Crypto.com, Interactive Brokers' ForecastEx, DraftKings, FanDuel and a relaunched Polymarket US followed with similar contracts, all offered nationwide without state sports-betting licenses.[34],[35]

The industry's legal argument rests on two federal hooks. The Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC "exclusive jurisdiction" over accounts, agreements and transactions involving swaps and futures-like instruments traded on a registered exchange (7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A)). A separate "Special Rule" (7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C)) lets the Commission bar a contract as "contrary to the public interest" if it involves enumerated activities including "gaming" — but only if the Commission makes that finding. CFTC Rule 40.11 implements the Special Rule. Industry argues that because the CFTC has made no such finding against sports contracts since 2023, and because the contracts are federally regulated swaps, state gambling law cannot reach them.[36],[37]

States, tribes and sports-governing bodies pushed back hard. Dozens of state gaming regulators and attorneys general issued cease-and-desist letters or sued Kalshi, Robinhood, Crypto.com and Polymarket over 2025 and 2026, arguing the contracts are unlicensed sports betting. Tribes in California, Wisconsin and New Mexico sued under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, arguing a nationwide app reaching mobile devices on tribal land offers unlicensed gambling that the Commodity Exchange Act neither mentions nor displaces. By mid-2026 coalitions of more than 40 state attorneys general had formally told the CFTC it lacks jurisdiction over sports-related event contracts, and the NCAA and other leagues separately objected to contracts tied to games, transfer-portal decisions and tournaments.[38],[39]

The CFTC's own posture flipped with the change in administration. Acting Chairman Caroline Pham opened 2025 by convening roundtables on prediction markets and criticizing the prior Commission's "anti-innovation policies." After Michael Selig was confirmed as Chairman in December 2025, the agency withdrew its 2024 proposed "gaming" rule and a 2025 staff advisory in February 2026, then opened new rulemakings asserting "exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets." In April 2026 the CFTC, joined by the Justice Department, sued Arizona, Connecticut and Illinois directly — its first such suits against states — and went on to sue more states, including New York and Kentucky (see the case list below), and file amicus briefs backing Kalshi in multiple circuit courts and the Massachusetts high court.[40],[41],[42]

As of October 2026 the federal courts are split. The Third Circuit ruled for Kalshi against New Jersey in April 2026, finding the Commodity Exchange Act likely preempts state gambling law. The Ninth Circuit (August 2026, against Nevada) and the Sixth Circuit (September 2026, against Ohio and Tennessee) ruled the other way, holding sports event contracts are unlikely to be CFTC-regulated "swaps" at all and that the CEA would not preempt state gambling law even if they were. New Jersey petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari in September 2026, and Ohio and 38 other states filed an amicus brief on October 7, 2026 urging the Court to take the case; the Court has not yet decided whether to hear it.[43],[44],[45],[46]

Prediction-market volume, revenue and CFTC licenses

In the federal appeals courts

3d Cir.

New Jersey

Latest ruling: for the exchange

Cert. petition pending

6th Cir.

Ohio

Latest ruling: for the state

Decided

6th Cir.

Tennessee

Latest ruling: for the state

Decided

8th Cir.

Iowa

Latest ruling: for the state

On appeal

9th Cir.

California

Latest ruling: mixed

Pending

9th Cir.

Nevada

Latest ruling: for the state

Decided

10th Cir.

Utah

Latest ruling: for the state

On appeal

7th Cir.

Wisconsin

Latest ruling: for the state

On appeal

4th Cir.

Maryland

Latest ruling: for the state

On appeal

The legal questions

Question	Exchanges and the CFTC argue	States and tribes argue	Courts so far
Does the Commodity Exchange Act's exclusive-jurisdiction clause preempt state gambling and sports-wagering law as applied to CFTC-registered sports event contracts?[43],[44],[45],[46]	Once a contract is a federally regulated swap or future traded on a CFTC-registered exchange, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A) gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over it; a state licensing or enforcement scheme that reaches that same transaction conflicts with federal law and is preempted, whatever label the state gives it.	The exclusive-jurisdiction clause allocates authority among federal regulators over commodities trading; it is not a clear statement that Congress meant to strip states of their traditional police power over gambling, which the clause never mentions, and courts should not infer that displacement from silence.	Split. The Third Circuit held the CEA likely preempts New Jersey's gambling law as applied to Kalshi's contracts (KalshiEX v. Flaherty, Apr. 2026). The Ninth Circuit (KalshiEX v. Assad) and Sixth Circuit (KalshiEX v. Schuler) held the CEA does not preempt state gambling-law enforcement, reasoning the contracts are not swaps and, separately, that the Act does not occupy the field of gambling regardless.
Are sports event contracts "swaps" or futures on a "commodity" within the CEA, so that federal jurisdiction attaches at all?[44],[45],[46],[47]	The outcome of a game is an occurrence on an "excluded commodity," and a cash-settled binary contract on that occurrence fits the CEA's post-Dodd-Frank definition of "swap," which Congress wrote broadly on purpose.	A bet on who wins a game is a wager on the outcome of a contest between others, not a hedge against an economic risk; it lacks a true derivative's risk-shifting purpose, and Kalshi itself has conceded the contracts have "no inherent economic significance."	Mostly against industry. The Ninth and Sixth Circuits, plus federal district judges in Iowa, Ohio and Nevada, have held sports-event contracts are unlikely to be "swaps"; the Third Circuit's Flaherty majority concluded they likely are.
Does CFTC Rule 40.11 and the CEA's "Special Rule" (7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C)) bar sports event contracts as impermissible "gaming," independent of the swap question?[48],[40],[49],[37]	The Special Rule and Rule 40.11 are discretionary — the Commission "may determine" a contract involves gaming and is contrary to the public interest — and the CFTC has made no such finding against sports contracts since withdrawing its 2024 proposal; absent an affirmative finding, nothing bars them.	Sports event contracts are functionally identical to a sportsbook's proposition bets and meet any reasonable reading of "gaming" under § 7a-2(c)(5)(C)(V); the CFTC's own 2023 order against Kalshi's election contracts read "gaming" broadly, and the agency's later reversal reflects a change in administration, not in the law.	Largely untested on the merits. The D.C. district court's 2024 ruling for Kalshi addressed only election contracts, holding elections are not "gaming," and did not reach whether sports contracts are.
Does the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act give tribes exclusive authority over gaming reaching Indian lands that these exchanges violate, regardless of CEA preemption?[39],[50],[51]	IGRA governs gaming conducted by tribal operators on Indian lands; Kalshi is a federally regulated exchange operating off-reservation, and a customer's location when trading on a mobile app does not convert a CFTC-registered derivatives transaction into "Indian gaming."	IGRA and tribal-state compacts give tribes and compacting states exclusive rights to offer sports wagering within their jurisdictions; a nationwide app reachable on tribal land offers unlicensed sports betting that undercuts the compact framework, and the CEA never mentions or abrogates IGRA.	Mostly unresolved. In September 2026 the Ninth Circuit held the California tribes are likely to succeed on their claim that Kalshi's sports contracts are unauthorized Class III gaming when accessed from tribal lands, and sent the case back to the district court. The Wisconsin and New Mexico tribal suits were still pending.
Can a state tax or impose added conditions on CFTC-registered exchanges (e.g., Kentucky's 2026 excise tax and event-contract restrictions) without being preempted?[52]	A state tax or operating condition aimed specifically at CFTC-registered exchanges is itself a state regulation "relating to" a federally regulated transaction, and is exactly the interference the CEA's exclusive-jurisdiction clause was meant to prevent; the CFTC sued Kentucky on this theory, saying the law "obstructs Congress' decision to federally preempt state law."	States retain their general power to tax business activity within their borders, including a per-contract excise tax on sales to in-state residents, which is not fundamentally different from the wagering taxes states already impose on licensed sportsbooks.	CFTC v. Kentucky was filed June 23, 2026; no ruling had issued as of October 2026.
Does a CFTC-registered exchange's "designated contract market" status let it override a state's own licensing requirement for anyone offering sports wagers?[43],[46]	Once the CFTC designates an exchange as a contract market and approves its sports contracts for listing, states cannot impose a separate licensing requirement on the same product without second-guessing a federal regulatory determination Congress committed to the CFTC alone.	DCM status regulates exchange operations (capital, surveillance, clearing) under the CEA; it says nothing about whether the product being listed is lawful under state gambling law, which states — not the CFTC — have always policed.	Split along the same lines as the preemption question; no court has held DCM status alone displaces state licensing without also finding the contracts are federally regulated swaps.

Timeline

42 events

Oct 7, 2026 · State
Ohio and 38 other states and D.C. file a Supreme Court amicus brief urging cert in Flaherty v. KalshiEX, invoking Murphy v. NCAA and calling the circuits "fractured."[74]
Sep 25, 2026 · Court
Sixth Circuit rules against Kalshi in KalshiEX v. Schuler, holding its contracts are unlikely to be "swaps" and that the CEA would not preempt Ohio or Tennessee gambling law even if they were, widening the circuit split.[46]
Sep 18, 2026 · Industry
FanDuel launches FanDuel Predicts, a prediction-markets app built on a joint-venture exchange with CME Group.[73]
Sep 8, 2026 · Court
Supreme Court dockets New Jersey's cert petition as No. 26-299, Flaherty v. KalshiEX, LLC.[43]
Sep 8, 2026 · Court
Tenth Circuit denies Kalshi's bid for an injunction pending appeal against Utah the same day a federal judge in Iowa denies a similar request, each finding the sports contracts unlikely to be "swaps."[47]
Sep 2, 2026 · State
New Jersey petitions the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari in Flaherty v. KalshiEX to resolve the circuit split.[43]
Aug 28, 2026 · Court
Ninth Circuit rules against Kalshi in KalshiEX v. Assad, holding its sports contracts are unlikely to be CFTC-regulated "swaps" and siding with Nevada; companion rulings the same day go against NADEX and Robinhood.[44],[45]
Jul 27, 2026 · State
Coalition of 44 state attorneys general, led by Ohio, tells the CFTC its proposed Rule 40.11 amendments "go well beyond its statutory authority."[72]
Jul 2026 · Congress
House Agriculture subcommittee holds a two-hour hearing on sports event contracts with no consensus on whether they are federally regulated derivatives or state-regulated gambling.[71]
Jun 23, 2026 · CFTC
CFTC sues Kentucky, arguing the state's new prediction-market excise tax and enforcement suits "obstruct Congress' decision to federally preempt state law."[52]
Jun 10, 2026 · CFTC
CFTC proposes amendments to Rule 40.11 and a new Appendix F setting a 90-day review process for "gaming" and other enumerated-activity event contracts.[70]
Jun 2026 · Industry
DraftKings launches DKeX, its own CFTC-registered prediction-markets exchange, built on the Railbird designated contract market it acquired in October 2025.[69]
May 20, 2026 · Congress
Senate Commerce subcommittee holds a sports-betting-integrity hearing scrutinizing prediction markets' use of CFTC regulation to work around state law.[68]
May 12, 2026 · CFTC
CFTC files an amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit (KalshiEx v. Schuler) asserting exclusive federal jurisdiction over prediction markets.[67]
May 4, 2026 · Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court hears argument in Commonwealth v. KalshiEX on whether Kalshi needs a state gaming license.[66]
May 1, 2026 · State
Coalition of 41 state attorneys general, led by Maryland, formally tells the CFTC it should "recognize the limits of its power" over sports-related event contracts.[38]
May 2026 · Tribe
Four New Mexico tribes sue Kalshi in federal court, adding to pending IGRA challenges from California and Wisconsin tribes.[50]
Apr 28, 2026 · CFTC
Days after suing New York, the CFTC files an amicus brief backing Kalshi before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; 38 state AGs file an opposing amicus the same day.[65]
Apr 10, 2026 · Court
Federal judge bars Arizona from regulating prediction-market operators and pauses the state's criminal prosecution of Kalshi pending further proceedings.[64]
Apr 9, 2026 · CFTC
CFTC moves for a preliminary injunction against Arizona's criminal and civil enforcement, pressing its exclusive-jurisdiction theory.[63]
Apr 6, 2026 · Court
Third Circuit rules 2-1 for Kalshi in KalshiEX v. Flaherty, holding the CEA likely preempts New Jersey's gambling law as applied to its sports contracts.[43]
Apr 2, 2026 · CFTC
CFTC and the Justice Department sue Arizona, Connecticut and Illinois — the agency's first direct suits against states over prediction-market jurisdiction.[42]
Mar 12, 2026 · CFTC
CFTC publishes an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on prediction markets; Chairman Selig says the agency "will exercise its exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets."[41]
Feb 4, 2026 · CFTC
CFTC formally withdraws its 2024 proposed event-contracts rule and the September 2025 staff advisory, saying it is "withdrawing these proposed rules to reconsider them in light of various forms of state regulatory actions."[40]
Dec 18, 2025 · Industry
Kalshi self-certifies contracts tied to the NCAA transfer portal; NCAA says it "vehemently opposes college sports prediction markets."[62]
Dec 18, 2025 · Congress
Senate confirms Michael Selig as CFTC Chairman, succeeding Acting Chairman Pham.[61]
Dec 2025 · Congress
House Agriculture Committee holds the first congressional hearing focused on sports event contracts, as part of CFTC reauthorization.[60]
Oct 1, 2025 · Industry
After a CFTC staff no-action letter, Polymarket files to list sports and election contracts for U.S. users through QCX, the exchange it bought, now doing business as Polymarket US.[59]
Sep 30, 2025 · CFTC
CFTC Division of Market Oversight issues a staff advisory to designated contract markets on listing sports-related event contracts.[58]
Aug 22, 2025 · Other
NCAA says it is "deeply concerned by unregulated and unprotected markets" after Kalshi and Robinhood add college football contracts.[57]
Jul 21, 2025 · Industry
Polymarket acquires CFTC-registered exchange QCEX for $112 million as its path back into the U.S. market.[56]
Jul 2025 · Tribe
Three California tribes sue Kalshi and Robinhood in federal court under IGRA, seeking to block sports event contracts from reaching tribal lands.[39]
Mar 17, 2025 · Industry
Robinhood launches a prediction-markets hub offering Kalshi-listed sports contracts to its users nationwide.[35]
Feb 5, 2025 · CFTC
Acting Chairman Caroline Pham announces public roundtables, including one on prediction markets, saying prior "anti-innovation policies ... have severely restricted" the market.[55]
Feb 2025 · Industry
Kalshi expands self-certification to single-game and prop-style sports contracts.[34]
Jan 2025 · Industry
Kalshi self-certifies championship-futures sports contracts (Super Bowl, NBA, NHL, NCAA titles).[34]
Oct 2, 2024 · Court
D.C. Circuit denies the CFTC's emergency motion to stay the ruling pending appeal; Kalshi resumes listing congressional-control contracts.[54]
Sep 6, 2024 · Court
Judge Jia Cobb (D.D.C.) rules for Kalshi, holding elections are not "gaming" and vacating the CFTC's disapproval order.[49]
Jun 10, 2024 · CFTC
CFTC publishes a proposed rule (89 FR 48968) to define which event contracts "involve gaming" and are barred under the Special Rule.[48]
Nov 2023 · Industry
Kalshi sues the CFTC in D.D.C. under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging the disapproval order.[49]
Sep 22, 2023 · CFTC
CFTC disapproves Kalshi's congressional control contracts, finding they "involve gaming and activity that is unlawful under state law," citing CEA § 5c(c)(5)(C) and Rule 40.11.[53]
Jun 12, 2023 · Industry
Kalshi self-certifies "congressional control" election-outcome contracts with the CFTC.[53]

Court cases (36)

Case	Court	Status	Latest ruling favors	Last activity
KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty D.N.J. 1:25-cv-02152; 3d Cir. 25-1922 · New Jersey · Prediction markets Kalshi sued to block New Jersey's Division of Gaming Enforcement from enforcing a cease-and-desist against its sports-event contracts and won a preliminary injunction, which the Third Circuit affirmed 2-1 on the ground that the Commodity Exchange Act likely preempts state gambling law for contracts traded on a CFTC-registered exchange. New Jersey has petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, citing a circuit split with the Ninth and Sixth Circuits; the petition is pending with heavy amicus activity as of October 2026.[75],[76],[77] Related: KalshiEX LLC v. Assad, KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel, KalshiEX LLC v. Martin Rulings and filings (5) Apr 28, 2025 D.N.J. (Judge Edward S. Kiel) grants Kalshi a preliminary injunction barring New Jersey DGE enforcement against its sports-related event contracts.[75] Apr 6, 2026 Third Circuit affirms the preliminary injunction 2-1, holding the CEA likely preempts New Jersey gambling law as applied to sports-event contracts traded on a designated contract market; decided only the preliminary-injunction standard, not the merits.[76] Sep 8, 2026 New Jersey officials' petition for a writ of certiorari is docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court as No. 26-299, Flaherty v. KalshiEX, LLC, from 3d Cir. No. 25-1922.[75] Sep 22, 2026 The Clerk extends Kalshi's response deadline on the cert petition to November 9, 2026.[75] Oct 7, 2026 Ohio and 38 other states plus the District of Columbia, and other amici including the NFL and 145 tribes, file briefs urging the Court to grant certiorari.[75]	3d Cir.	Cert. petition pending	Exchange / CFTC	Oct 7, 2026
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Illinois Illinois · Prediction markets The CFTC sued Illinois — part of a trio of same-day suits against Illinois, Arizona and Connecticut — after Illinois sent cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Crypto.com and Polymarket, arguing state enforcement violates the agency's exclusive authority over federally regulated event contracts. On October 2, 2026, a federal judge reportedly granted the CFTC and Kalshi a preliminary injunction on their preemption theory.[78],[79],[80] Rulings and filings (2) Apr 2, 2026 CFTC sues Illinois, naming the governor, AG and gaming officials, days after Illinois cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Crypto.com and Polymarket.[78],[79] Oct 2, 2026 A federal judge (reported as Judge Martha Pacold) grants preliminary injunctions to the CFTC and Kalshi against Illinois, finding sports-event contracts likely qualify as swaps and that Illinois law is likely preempted; parties were ordered to submit a proposed injunction by October 29.[80]	N.D. Ill.	Pending	Exchange / CFTC	Oct 2, 2026
KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler S.D. Ohio 2:25-cv-01165; 6th Cir. 26-3196 · Ohio · Prediction markets After the Ohio Casino Control Commission issued a cease-and-desist and the district court denied Kalshi a preliminary injunction, the Sixth Circuit — in one opinion resolving both this case and the parallel Tennessee appeal — ruled on September 25, 2026 that Kalshi's sports-event contracts are not CEA "swaps" and that, even if they were, Ohio's gambling law would not be preempted. This widened the circuit split against the Third Circuit's contrary ruling for Kalshi in the New Jersey case.[81],[82],[83] Related: KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel, KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty, KalshiEX LLC v. Assad, Nessel v. KalshiEX LLC Rulings and filings (4) Oct 7, 2025 Kalshi sues OCCC and Ohio AG Dave Yost in federal court seeking to block enforcement, after the Commission's March 2025 cease-and-desist and an October 2025 compliance letter.[82] Apr 24, 2026 Sixth Circuit motions panel denies an injunction pending appeal but expedites the appeal.[83] Jul 30, 2026 Sixth Circuit hears merits oral argument (consolidated with the Tennessee appeal).[81] Sep 25, 2026 Sixth Circuit (Judge Julia Smith Gibbons) decides Nos. 26-3196 and 26-5235 together, holding sports-event contracts are not CEA swaps and, regardless, state gambling law is not preempted; affirms denial of Kalshi's requested preliminary injunction against Ohio enforcement; remands for further proceedings.[81],[84]	6th Cir.	Decided	State / tribe	Sep 25, 2026
KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel M.D. Tenn. 3:26-cv-00034; 6th Cir. 26-5235 · Tennessee · Prediction markets Kalshi sued Tennessee's Sports Wagering Council after a cease-and-desist order and won a preliminary injunction from Judge Aleta Trauger. The Sixth Circuit, deciding this appeal together with the parallel Ohio case, ruled for Tennessee on September 25, 2026, vacating the injunction and holding Kalshi's sports contracts are not CEA swaps and are not exempt from state regulation even if they were.[85],[86],[87],[81] Related: KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty, KalshiEX LLC v. Assad Rulings and filings (3) Jan 9, 2026 Kalshi sues Tennessee Sports Wagering Council officials and AG Skrmetti in M.D. Tenn. after a cease-and-desist order.[86] Feb 2026 Judge Aleta Trauger grants Kalshi a preliminary injunction blocking Sports Wagering Council enforcement.[87] Sep 25, 2026 Sixth Circuit vacates the Tennessee injunction and remands, holding the sports-event contracts are not swaps and state law is not preempted regardless.[85],[81]	6th Cir.	Decided	State / tribe	Sep 25, 2026
KalshiEX LLC v. Bird S.D./S.D. Iowa 4:26-cv-00109-SHL-HCA; 8th Cir. 26-2874 · Iowa · Prediction markets Kalshi sued Iowa AG Brenna Bird and the Racing and Gaming Commission seeking a ruling that federal law preempts Iowa gambling law for its event contracts. Judge Stephen Locher denied Kalshi's preliminary-injunction motion, holding sports-event contracts are not "swaps" under the Commodity Exchange Act; Kalshi has appealed to the Eighth Circuit, with briefing due into November 2026.[88],[89],[90] Related: KalshiEX LLC v. Assad, KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler Rulings and filings (4) Mar 11, 2026 Kalshi sues AG Brenna Bird and Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on preemption grounds.[88] Sep 8, 2026 District court denies Kalshi's preliminary-injunction motion, holding sports-event contracts are not CEA "swaps."[89],[90] Sep 15, 2026 Kalshi files a notice of appeal.[89] Sep 17, 2026 Eighth Circuit dockets the appeal as No. 26-2874; appellant's brief due November 6, 2026.[89]	8th Cir.	On appeal	State / tribe	Sep 17, 2026
KalshiEX LLC v. Knudsen 6:26-cv-00028-DWM · Montana · Prediction markets After Montana's Gambling Control Division twice warned that Kalshi's contracts were illegal gambling and threatened criminal charges, Kalshi sued in federal court. The parties voluntarily dismissed the case in September 2026 — with prejudice as to Gambling Control Commission members, without prejudice as to the Attorney General and the Division — as part of a non-enforcement arrangement tied to the outcome of the related Nevada case.[91],[92] Related: KalshiEX LLC v. Assad Rulings and filings (2) Apr 2026 Montana's Gambling Control Division sends a second cease-and-desist letter ruling Kalshi's event contracts illegal gambling and threatening criminal charges; Kalshi sues in federal court the same month.[91] Sep 17, 2026 Parties file a joint stipulation of dismissal — with prejudice as to Gambling Control Commission members, without prejudice as to the Attorney General, an official and the Division.[92]	D. Mont.	Dismissed	Mixed	Sep 17, 2026
Blue Lake Rancheria et al. v. Kalshi, Inc. et al. N.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-06162; 9th Cir. 25-7504 · California · Prediction markets Three California tribes sued Kalshi and Robinhood alleging their sports-event contracts enable unauthorized Class III gambling reaching tribal lands, in violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and other law. The district court denied a preliminary injunction in late 2025; on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed in part on September 16, 2026, finding the tribes likely to succeed on their Class III claim, and remanded for the district court to weigh the remaining injunction factors.[93] Rulings and filings (3) Jul 22, 2025 The tribes file a complaint against Kalshi and Robinhood in the Northern District of California.[93] Nov 2025 The district court denies the tribes' motion for a preliminary injunction.[93] Sep 16, 2026 Ninth Circuit reverses in part, holding the tribes are likely to succeed on their claim that Kalshi's sports contracts are unauthorized Class III gaming when accessed from tribal lands, but affirms that Kalshi's ad-legality statement is nonactionable opinion; remands for the district court to weigh the remaining injunction factors.[93]	9th Cir.	Pending	Mixed	Sep 16, 2026
Underdog Sports, LLC v. Massachusetts et al. Prediction markets After surrendering its daily-fantasy licenses in seven states to protect its CFTC-regulated prediction-market business, Underdog preemptively sued five states (Massachusetts, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Washington) on September 8, 2026, and Connecticut about a week later, seeking declarations and permanent injunctions that state gambling-law enforcement against its event contracts violates the Supremacy Clause. No rulings had been reported as of October 2026.[94],[95],[96] Related: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. KalshiEX LLC, State of Wisconsin v. Kalshi, Inc. et al., State of Washington v. KalshiEX LLC, State of Connecticut v. KalshiEX LLC Rulings and filings (2) Sep 8, 2026 Underdog files federal suits against Massachusetts, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Washington, seeking permanent injunctions against state enforcement of gambling laws on its prediction-market business.[94],[95] Sep 16, 2026 Underdog files a similar suit against Connecticut, asking the court to block AG Tong and the Department of Consumer Protection from exercising state authority over its event contracts.[96]	Federal district courts	Pending	No ruling yet	Sep 16, 2026
KalshiEX LLC v. Assad D. Nev. 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW; 9th Cir. 25-7516 · Nevada · Prediction markets Kalshi won an early preliminary injunction against Nevada gaming regulators, which the district court dissolved in November 2025 after finding the record had developed since the "accelerated" early ruling. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dissolution as to sports-event contracts, holding they are not CFTC-regulated "swaps" and so Nevada's gambling law is not preempted, but remanded Kalshi's election-contract claims for the district court to decide. Kalshi has sought en banc rehearing, and a co-litigant (Robinhood) has separately petitioned the Supreme Court over the same ruling.[97],[98],[99],[100] Related: KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty, KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel, KalshiEX LLC v. Mayes Rulings and filings (5) Apr 9, 2025 D. Nev. (Judge Andrew P. Gordon) grants Kalshi a preliminary injunction against Nevada Gaming Control Board enforcement.[98] Nov 24, 2025 Judge Gordon dissolves the preliminary injunction, finding the law and facts had evolved since the early, "accelerated" ruling.[99] Aug 28, 2026 Ninth Circuit affirms dissolution of the injunction as to sports-event contracts, holding they are not "swaps" under 7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(A)(ii) and the CEA does not preempt Nevada gaming law for them; remands the election-contracts question to the district court.[97] Sep 10, 2026 Kalshi petitions the Ninth Circuit for en banc rehearing of the panel's ruling.[101] Sep 14, 2026 Robinhood Derivatives, LLC — a co-litigant in the parallel Nevada dispute — petitions the Supreme Court over the same Ninth Circuit ruling, docketed as No. 26-338.[100]	9th Cir.	Decided	State / tribe	Sep 14, 2026
KalshiEX LLC v. Mayes 2:26-cv-01715-MTL · Arizona · Prediction markets After Arizona's Department of Gaming issued a cease-and-desist, Kalshi preemptively sued AG Kris Mayes and gaming officials. A federal judge initially declined to block Arizona's parallel criminal prosecution as premature, then on May 5, 2026 granted Kalshi a preliminary injunction holding the CEA preempts Arizona's gambling law for CFTC-regulated contracts. Arizona has since asked the Ninth Circuit to vacate that injunction in light of the Ninth Circuit's contrary Nevada ruling; the motion was pending as of October 2026.[102] Related: State of Arizona v. KalshiEX LLC et al., United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Arizona, KalshiEX LLC v. Assad Rulings and filings (4) Mar 12, 2026 Kalshi sues AG Kris Mayes and Arizona Department of Gaming officials in federal court, seeking to block enforcement on CFTC-preemption grounds.[102] Mar 17, 2026 Federal judge denies Kalshi's request to enjoin state enforcement and orders Kalshi to show cause why the court should not abstain given the pending state criminal case.[102] May 5, 2026 The same judge reverses course and grants Kalshi a preliminary injunction holding federal law preempts Arizona's gambling law for CFTC-regulated contracts.[102] Sep 14, 2026 Arizona moves in the Ninth Circuit to vacate the Arizona injunction as to sports-event contracts, citing the Ninth Circuit's Nevada ruling; motion pending.[102]	D. Ariz.	On appeal	Mixed	Sep 14, 2026
KalshiEx LLC v. Cox D. Utah 2:26-cv-00151; 10th Cir. 26-4100 · Utah · Prediction markets Kalshi preemptively sued Governor Cox, the Attorney General and other officials to block anticipated enforcement as Utah advanced HB 243, which added "proposition bet" to the statutory definition of gambling. Judge Robert J. Shelby granted summary judgment for Utah on August 4, 2026, holding the CEA does not preempt Utah's enforcement; Kalshi appealed, and the Tenth Circuit denied an emergency injunction pending appeal on September 8, 2026.[103],[104],[105] Rulings and filings (4) Feb 23, 2026 Kalshi sues Governor Cox and other Utah officials seeking a declaratory judgment that the CEA preempts enforcement of Utah's gambling laws against its contracts.[103] Mar 25, 2026 Governor Cox signs HB 243 ("Gambling Revisions"), adding "proposition bet" to the statutory definition of gambling, effective May 6, 2026.[104] Aug 4, 2026 Judge Robert J. Shelby grants Utah's motion for summary judgment, holding the CEA does not preempt Utah's enforcement of its anti-gambling laws against Kalshi, denies Kalshi's preliminary-injunction motion as moot, and closes the case.[103] Sep 8, 2026 Tenth Circuit denies Kalshi's emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal, allowing Utah to enforce its gambling laws against Kalshi.[105]	10th Cir.	On appeal	State / tribe	Sep 8, 2026
Mescalero Apache Tribe et al. v. Kalshi, Inc. 1:26-cv-01517 · New Mexico · Prediction markets Four New Mexico tribal nations sued Kalshi in federal court, alleging its sports-event contracts enable unlicensed, under-21 sports gambling that violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and undermines their tribal gaming compacts. A preliminary-injunction motion was fully briefed by September 2026 with no ruling yet.[106] Related: State of New Mexico v. Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX LLC Rulings and filings (2) May 12, 2026 The tribes file a complaint against Kalshi in the District of New Mexico.[106] Sep 4, 2026 Plaintiffs file notice that briefing is complete on their motion for a preliminary injunction; no ruling had issued as of October 2026.[106]	D.N.M.	Pending	No ruling yet	Sep 4, 2026
Nessel v. KalshiEX LLC Michigan · Prediction markets Michigan AG Dana Nessel sued Kalshi in Ingham County Circuit Court alleging violation of the state's Lawful Sports Betting Act. After removal and remand, the court granted a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction requiring geofencing and barring Michigan-targeted advertising, with a $500,000-per-day penalty for noncompliance; Kalshi's related federal appeal over the remand is held in abeyance pending the Sixth Circuit's Ohio/Tennessee rulings.[107],[108],[109] Related: KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel Rulings and filings (5) Mar 2026 AG Nessel files suit against Kalshi alleging violation of Michigan's Lawful Sports Betting Act.[107] Jun 29, 2026 Western District of Michigan grants the AG's motion to remand to state court; Ingham County Circuit Court grants a temporary restraining order halting Kalshi's Michigan sports-wagering operations.[107] Jul 27, 2026 Kalshi appeals the federal remand order to the Sixth Circuit (No. 26-1639).[109] Aug 24, 2026 Sixth Circuit grants Kalshi's motion to hold briefing in abeyance pending resolution of the related KalshiEX v. Schuler and KalshiEX v. Orgel appeals.[109] Sep 2, 2026 Ingham County Circuit Court grants a preliminary injunction requiring geofencing and barring Michigan-targeted advertising, with a $500,000-per-day penalty for violations.[108]	Ingham Co. Cir. Ct.	Pending	State / tribe	Sep 2, 2026
State of Connecticut v. KalshiEX LLC Connecticut · Prediction markets Connecticut's Gaming Division issued a cease-and-desist to Kalshi, Robinhood and Crypto.com in December 2025; a federal judge denied Kalshi's bid to enjoin enforcement in August 2026. Connecticut then sued Kalshi directly, seeking an injunction, disgorgement, restitution and civil penalties over unlicensed sports wagering and alleged marketing to minors; the case was removed to federal court the same day it was filed.[110] Related: United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Connecticut, Underdog Sports, LLC v. Massachusetts et al. Rulings and filings (3) Dec 2, 2025 Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection Gaming Division orders Kalshi, Robinhood and Crypto.com to cease and desist unlicensed online sports wagering.[110] Aug 7, 2026 A federal judge denies Kalshi's motion for a preliminary injunction against Connecticut's enforcement.[110] Aug 26, 2026 Connecticut (AG Tong, DCP Commissioner Cafferelli, Gov. Lamont) sues Kalshi, seeking an injunction, disgorgement, restitution and civil penalties; the complaint is removed to federal court the same day.[110]	D. Conn.	Pending	State / tribe	Aug 26, 2026
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Wisconsin E.D. Wis. 2:26-cv-00749-WCG; 7th Cir. 26-2675 · Wisconsin · Prediction markets Days after Wisconsin's own enforcement suits against five prediction-market and crypto platforms, the CFTC sued the state seeking to enjoin enforcement of its gambling statutes against CFTC-regulated contracts. On July 28, 2026, Judge William C. Griesbach denied the CFTC's preliminary-injunction motion, Wisconsin's motion to dismiss, and motions to intervene by Kalshi and others, finding the CFTC had not shown a likelihood of success on its swaps-preemption theory. The CFTC and Kalshi have appealed to the Seventh Circuit.[111],[112],[113] Related: State of Wisconsin v. Kalshi, Inc. et al. Rulings and filings (3) Apr 28, 2026 CFTC and the United States sue Wisconsin, Governor Evers and AG Kaul, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the state's anti-gambling statutes against CFTC-regulated designated contract markets.[111],[112] Jul 28, 2026 Judge William C. Griesbach denies the CFTC's motion for a preliminary injunction, Wisconsin's motion to dismiss and venue-transfer motion, and all motions to intervene.[112] Aug 14, 2026 Appeal docketed at the Seventh Circuit, with KalshiEX LLC as an appellant; appellant's brief due September 23, 2026.[113]	7th Cir.	On appeal	State / tribe	Aug 14, 2026
State of Washington v. KalshiEX LLC Washington · Prediction markets AG Nick Brown sued Kalshi in King County Superior Court, alleging violations of the Washington Gambling Act and Consumer Protection Act over sports, election and other event contracts. The court granted a preliminary injunction and then a final order in August 2026 requiring Kalshi to stop offering and advertising covered wagers to Washington residents, with geofencing deadlines; the Washington Court of Appeals denied Kalshi's request to stay the injunction pending appeal.[114],[115] Related: Underdog Sports, LLC v. Massachusetts et al. Rulings and filings (4) Mar 27, 2026 AG Nick Brown sues Kalshi, alleging its event contracts on sports, elections, Supreme Court cases and other outcomes violate state gambling and consumer-protection law.[114] Jul 2026 King County Superior Court grants a preliminary injunction, finding Kalshi likely violated state law and that Washington consumers would suffer substantial injury absent relief.[115] Aug 2026 The Washington Court of Appeals denies Kalshi's request to stay the injunction pending appeal.[115] Aug 13, 2026 King County Superior Court issues a final order barring Kalshi from offering or advertising covered wagers to Washington residents, with geofencing deadlines of August 19 and September 2, 2026.[115]	Wash. Ct. App.	On appeal	State / tribe	Aug 13, 2026
State of New York v. KalshiEX LLC New York · Prediction markets Governor Hochul and AG James announced New York sued KalshiEX LLC for running an unlicensed, illegal gambling operation that lets users under 21 wager on uncertain outcomes, seeking an injunction, forfeiture and treble-damages fines. The CFTC separately sued the same day to block New York's enforcement; neither case had been decided as of October 2026.[116] Related: Commodity Futures Trading Commission and United States v. State of New York Rulings and filings (1) Jul 31, 2026 New York sues KalshiEX LLC in state Supreme Court, alleging an unlicensed, illegal gambling operation and seeking an injunction, forfeiture of illegal gains, restitution and fines equal to three times Kalshi's gains.[116]	N.Y. Sup. Ct.	Pending	No ruling yet	Jul 31, 2026
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and United States v. State of Minnesota Minnesota · Prediction markets The CFTC and DOJ sued Minnesota one day after Governor Walz signed a law making it a felony to operate or promote a prediction-market platform, arguing the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts traded on its designated contract markets. A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law before its August 1, 2026 effective date; Kalshi and Polymarket pursued related suits over the same law.[117],[118] Rulings and filings (2) May 19, 2026 CFTC and DOJ sue Minnesota to block the new state law before it takes effect August 1, 2026, seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction.[117] Jul 27, 2026 Judge Katherine Menendez grants a preliminary injunction, finding the law likely at least partially preempted by the CEA.[118]	D. Minn.	Pending	Exchange / CFTC	Jul 27, 2026
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Kentucky · Prediction markets The CFTC and DOJ sued Kentucky over its new prediction-market excise tax and event-contract restrictions, naming Governor Andy Beshear, AG Russell Coleman and the Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation, arguing the measures intrude on the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction over federally regulated swaps markets. Filed six days after Kentucky's own state-court suits against Kalshi, Polymarket and VGW.[119] Related: Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Kalshi Inc. et al. Rulings and filings (1) Jun 23, 2026 CFTC files suit against Kentucky seeking to block state enforcement and the new excise tax on prediction markets.[119]	E.D. Ky.	Pending	No ruling yet	Jun 23, 2026
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Kalshi Inc. et al. Kentucky · Prediction markets Kentucky AG Russell Coleman sued Kalshi (naming Coinbase as an alleged fee-sharing affiliate), Polymarket (with Robinhood and Webull) and VGW Holdings in Franklin Circuit Court, alleging each operates an unlicensed sportsbook or sweepstakes casino in violation of state gambling and consumer-protection law.[84],[120] Related: United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Rulings and filings (1) Jun 17, 2026 AG Coleman files three suits (against Kalshi, Polymarket and VGW) in Franklin Circuit Court alleging unlicensed gambling.[84],[120]	Franklin Cir. Ct.	Pending	No ruling yet	Jun 17, 2026
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of New Mexico New Mexico · Prediction markets The CFTC sued New Mexico days after AG Torrez sued Kalshi in state court, naming Governor Lujan Grisham, AG Torrez and the state Gaming Control Board, and arguing the state cannot apply its gambling laws to federally regulated prediction-market platforms.[121],[122] Related: State of New Mexico v. Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX LLC Rulings and filings (1) Jun 12, 2026 CFTC files suit in the District of New Mexico seeking to stop the state from applying its gambling laws to CFTC-regulated prediction markets.[121],[122]	D.N.M.	Pending	No ruling yet	Jun 12, 2026
State of New Mexico v. Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX LLC New Mexico · Prediction markets New Mexico AG Raúl Torrez sued Kalshi, alleging it runs an unlicensed sportsbook in violation of state law reserving sports wagering to tribal-state compacts, allows under-21 wagering, and pays no state gaming tax. The state described the suit as complementary to the separate tribal federal suit.[123] Related: Mescalero Apache Tribe et al. v. Kalshi, Inc., Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of New Mexico Rulings and filings (1) Jun 4, 2026 AG Torrez announces the lawsuit against Kalshi in First Judicial District Court, alleging an unlicensed sportsbook operating outside the tribal-compact/state-licensing framework.[123]	First Jud. Dist. Ct. (Santa Fe, NM)	Pending	No ruling yet	Jun 4, 2026
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Rhode Island Rhode Island · Prediction markets The CFTC moved to block state enforcement in Rhode Island, intervening in Kalshi's existing federal suit against AG Neronha, arguing the state's enforcement against Kalshi and Polymarket is preempted by the CFTC's exclusive authority over designated contract markets.[124],[125] Related: State of Rhode Island v. KalshiEX LLC and QCX LLC Rulings and filings (1) May 28, 2026 CFTC sues to block state enforcement in Rhode Island, intervening in Kalshi's existing federal case against AG Neronha.[124],[125]	D.R.I.	Pending	No ruling yet	May 28, 2026
State of Rhode Island v. KalshiEX LLC and QCX LLC Rhode Island · Prediction markets AG Peter Neronha sued Kalshi and Polymarket (as QCX LLC) in Providence County Superior Court, arguing their sports-related event contracts are sports betting under state law; Kalshi had preemptively sued Neronha in federal court hours earlier. The case was removed to and consolidated in federal court, where preliminary-injunction motions were argued in August 2026 and remained undecided as of October 2026.[126] Related: Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Rhode Island Rulings and filings (1) May 21, 2026 AG Neronha sues Kalshi and Polymarket in Providence County Superior Court, seeking a declaration that sports-related event contracts are sports betting under Rhode Island law and a permanent injunction.[126]	D.R.I.	Pending	No ruling yet	May 21, 2026
KalshiEX LLC v. Martin D. Md. 1:25-cv-01283; 4th Cir. 25-1892 · Maryland · Prediction markets Judge Adam B. Abelson denied Kalshi a preliminary injunction against Maryland's cease-and-desist enforcement, finding Kalshi unlikely to show CEA preemption. Kalshi appealed; Maryland agreed in writing not to enforce while the appeal is pending. The Fourth Circuit heard argument in May 2026 with the panel reportedly skeptical of Kalshi, but had not ruled as of October 2026, and no party has sought certiorari in this case.[127],[128],[129],[130] Related: KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty, KalshiEX LLC v. Assad, KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler Rulings and filings (3) Apr 21, 2025 Kalshi sues Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission officials in D. Md.[127] Aug 1, 2025 Judge Adam B. Abelson denies Kalshi's preliminary-injunction motion, finding it has not shown a strong likelihood that federal law preempts Maryland's gambling law.[128] May 7, 2026 Fourth Circuit hears oral argument on Kalshi's appeal; the panel is reported as skeptical of Kalshi's preemption theory.[130],[129]	4th Cir.	On appeal	State / tribe	May 7, 2026
State of Arizona v. KalshiEX LLC et al. Arizona · Prediction markets Arizona AG Kris Mayes filed a 20-count misdemeanor criminal case against KalshiEX LLC and Kalshi Trading LLC in Maricopa County Superior Court, alleging illegal unlicensed wagering including on elections — the first criminal case filed by any state against a prediction-market operator. The related federal preliminary injunction in Kalshi's civil suit against Arizona has effectively halted the prosecution; no trial or dismissal was reported as of October 2026.[131],[102] Related: KalshiEX LLC v. Mayes Rulings and filings (2) Mar 16, 2026 Arizona AG Kris Mayes files a 20-count criminal case against KalshiEX LLC and Kalshi Trading LLC in Maricopa County Superior Court, alleging unlicensed gambling and illegal election wagering.[131],[102] May 5, 2026 The federal preliminary injunction issued in Kalshi's civil suit against Arizona effectively halts continued prosecution of the criminal case.[102]	Maricopa Co. Super. Ct.	Stayed	Exchange / CFTC	May 5, 2026
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. KalshiEX LLC Suffolk Super. Ct.; SJC-13906 · Massachusetts · Prediction markets Massachusetts AG Andrea Campbell sued Kalshi in Suffolk Superior Court over unlicensed sports wagering and won a preliminary injunction in January 2026, but a single Appeals Court justice stayed it pending appeal, letting Kalshi keep operating. The Supreme Judicial Court heard argument in May 2026 and had not ruled as of October 2026.[132] Related: KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, Underdog Sports, LLC v. Massachusetts et al. Rulings and filings (3) Jan 20, 2026 Suffolk Superior Court (Judge Christopher K. Barry-Smith) grants the Commonwealth's preliminary injunction against Kalshi and denies Kalshi's motion to dismiss.[132] Feb 1, 2026 A single Appeals Court justice stays the injunction pending appeal, allowing Kalshi to resume offering sports contracts in Massachusetts.[132] May 4, 2026 SJC hears oral argument on whether the CEA preempts Massachusetts's sports-wagering law as applied to Kalshi.[132]	Mass. SJC	On appeal	Mixed	May 4, 2026
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and United States v. State of New York New York · Prediction markets The CFTC and DOJ sued New York in Manhattan federal court after AG Letitia James sued Coinbase and Gemini, arguing the state's actions intrude on the CFTC's exclusive scheme for regulating commodity derivatives markets; the suit names Governor Hochul, AG James and the state's gaming commission.[133],[134] Related: State of New York v. KalshiEX LLC Rulings and filings (1) Apr 24, 2026 CFTC and DOJ file a civil complaint in the Southern District of New York against the state and its leaders, seeking a declaration of exclusive federal authority over event contracts and an injunction against state enforcement.[133],[134]	S.D.N.Y.	Pending	No ruling yet	Apr 24, 2026
State of Wisconsin v. Kalshi, Inc. et al. Wisconsin · Prediction markets Wisconsin AG Josh Kaul brought civil enforcement actions in Dane County Circuit Court against Coinbase, Kalshi, Robinhood, Polymarket and Crypto.com, alleging illegal commercial gambling under state law; the defendants removed the cases to federal court, where remand motions were reported pending as of mid-2026.[112] Related: United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Wisconsin, Underdog Sports, LLC v. Massachusetts et al. Rulings and filings (1) Apr 23, 2026 Wisconsin initiates civil enforcement actions in Dane County Circuit Court against Coinbase, Kalshi, Robinhood, Polymarket and Crypto.com under Wis. Stat. § 945.03.[112]	W.D. Wis.	Pending	No ruling yet	Apr 23, 2026
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Arizona Arizona · Prediction markets The CFTC sued Arizona the same day it sued Illinois and Connecticut, then moved to enjoin Arizona's criminal and civil enforcement against Kalshi; a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order blocking the state's criminal prosecution around April 10, 2026. This suit has since proceeded alongside Kalshi's own consolidated federal case against Arizona.[78],[135],[136],[79] Related: KalshiEX LLC v. Mayes, State of Arizona v. KalshiEX LLC et al. Rulings and filings (3) Apr 2, 2026 CFTC sues Arizona, naming the governor and AG, alongside parallel suits against Illinois and Connecticut.[78],[79] Apr 9, 2026 CFTC moves to enjoin Arizona's criminal and civil enforcement against prediction markets.[135] Apr 10, 2026 A federal judge grants a temporary restraining order blocking Arizona's criminal-enforcement proceedings against Kalshi.[136]	D. Ariz.	Pending	Exchange / CFTC	Apr 10, 2026
United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Connecticut Connecticut · Prediction markets The CFTC sued Connecticut the same day it sued Illinois and Arizona, seeking to bar the state from applying its gambling law to CFTC-registered prediction-market exchanges.[78],[79] Related: State of Connecticut v. KalshiEX LLC Rulings and filings (1) Apr 2, 2026 CFTC sues Connecticut, naming the governor and AG, alongside parallel suits against Illinois and Arizona.[78],[79]	D. Conn.	Pending	No ruling yet	Apr 2, 2026
Reynolds v. Kalshi Inc. et al. 3:26-cv-00336 · Oregon · Prediction markets A proposed class action alleges Kalshi's sports "event contracts" are in substance illegal sports bets under Oregon's gambling-loss-recovery statute and Unlawful Trade Practices Act, since Oregon permits online sports wagering only through the state lottery. No class has been certified and no ruling had issued as of October 2026.[137] Rulings and filings (1) Feb 20, 2026 Complaint filed in the District of Oregon alleging Kalshi's event contracts are unlicensed sports betting under Oregon's loss-recovery and unfair-trade-practices statutes.[137]	D. Or.	Pending	No ruling yet	Feb 20, 2026
KalshiEX LLC v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission D.D.C. 1:23-cv-03257; D.C. Cir. 24-5205 · Prediction markets Kalshi sued the CFTC after it blocked Kalshi's congressional-control election contracts. Judge Jia Cobb granted Kalshi summary judgment in September 2024, vacating the CFTC's order. The CFTC appealed to the D.C. Circuit but voluntarily dismissed that appeal in May 2025 under a negotiated settlement, leaving Cobb's ruling allowing the election contracts in effect — the first major federal ruling for Kalshi's "swap" theory.[138],[139],[140],[141],[142] Rulings and filings (5) Sep 6, 2024 Judge Jia Cobb grants summary judgment for Kalshi and vacates the CFTC's September 2023 order blocking congressional-control election contracts.[138] Sep 12, 2024 CFTC appeals to the D.C. Circuit (No. 24-5205); the court administratively stays Judge Cobb's order the same day.[139] Oct 2, 2024 D.C. Circuit dissolves the administrative stay and denies the CFTC's stay motion without prejudice.[140] May 5, 2025 CFTC files an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal under a negotiated settlement in which each side bears its own costs.[141] May 7, 2025 D.C. Circuit grants the voluntary dismissal, leaving Judge Cobb's 2024 ruling in effect.[142]	D.D.C.	Dismissed	Exchange / CFTC	May 7, 2025
West Flagler Associates, Ltd. v. Haaland 21-5265 (D.C. Cir.); cert. denied, No. 23-862 · Florida · Tribal gaming Commercial (non-tribal) casino operators challenged the Interior Department's approval by inaction of Florida's 2021 compact with the Seminole Tribe, which — combined with a state law treating online wagers as placed where the receiving server sits — let the Tribe offer online sports betting statewide. The D.C. Circuit reversed a district court ruling against the compact, holding on June 30, 2023 that a compact may address the "allocation of criminal and civil jurisdiction between states and tribes with respect to enforcing those laws" and that routing off-reservation bets to on-reservation servers was a permissible jurisdictional allocation under IGRA rather than independent authority for off-reservation gaming. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 17, 2024, leaving the Seminole Tribe's statewide mobile sports-betting monopoly in place.[143],[144] Rulings and filings (2) Jun 30, 2023 D.C. Circuit reverses the district court and upholds the Seminole Tribe compact's online sports-betting structure under IGRA.[144] Jun 17, 2024 Supreme Court denies the casino operators' petition for certiorari; Justice Kavanaugh would have granted it.[143]	U.S.	Decided	State / tribe	Jun 17, 2024
New Hampshire Lottery Commission v. Rosen 19-1835 · New Hampshire · Online gambling The New Hampshire Lottery Commission and its vendors sued DOJ to block the 2018 OLC opinion reinterpreting the Wire Act to cover all forms of interstate gambling, not just sports. The First Circuit affirmed a declaratory judgment that the Wire Act's prohibitions are limited to bets or wagers on sporting events or contests, reinstating the narrower 2011 reading nationwide and protecting state online lottery sales, multi-state online poker compacts, and similar interstate gambling-adjacent data transmissions from Wire Act exposure.[2] Related: Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association Rulings and filings (1) Jan 20, 2021 First Circuit affirms that the Wire Act's prohibitions are limited to sports betting.[2]	1st Cir.	Decided		Jan 20, 2021
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association 16-476 · Sports betting The Supreme Court struck down PASPA's ban on states authorizing sports betting as unconstitutional commandeering of state legislatures under the Tenth Amendment, and held the statute's remaining provisions were not severable from the invalid part, so the entire law fell. The 6-3 decision (Alito, J.) opened the door for states to legalize and regulate sports betting themselves, which New Jersey and dozens of other states have since done.[9] Related: New Hampshire Lottery Commission v. Rosen Rulings and filings (1) May 14, 2018 Supreme Court strikes down PASPA, 6-3.[9]	U.S.	Decided		May 14, 2018

Bills in Congress

Bill	Title	Status	Date
H.R. 10357 119th Congress	Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act · Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) A broad digital-asset tax package from Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith that also carries the restored 100% gambling-loss deduction language from the FULL HOUSE Act; the committee approved it 38-5 on September 16, 2026. It still needs a full House floor vote, Senate passage, and the President's signature before the 90% cap on gambling-loss deductions (in force since January 1, 2026) would be reversed. [145]	In committee	Sep 16, 2026
S. 4160 119th Congress	Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act · Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) Would amend the Commodity Exchange Act to bar CFTC-registered entities from listing or offering event contracts tied to the outcome of sporting events or to casino-style games (slot machine games, video poker, blackjack, bingo), and to make clear that federal commodities law does not preempt state authority to regulate or ban those products. Introduced with cosponsors Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) and Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) amid the Kalshi/Polymarket sports-contracts dispute; referred to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee with no further action recorded as of this research. [146]	Introduced	Mar 23, 2026
H.R. 4304 119th Congress	Fair Accounting for Income Realized from Betting Earnings Taxation Act (FAIR BET Act) · Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) Would amend IRC § 165(d) to restore a 100% deduction for gambling losses against gambling winnings, reversing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's 90% cap that took effect for tax years after 2025. Referred to Ways and Means with no committee vote; Rep. Titus filed a discharge petition (Petition No. 119-16) on February 12, 2026 to try to force a floor vote. The same policy goal was later folded into the FULL HOUSE Act (H.R. 6985) and the broader H.R. 10357 tax package that Ways and Means approved in September 2026. [147],[148]	In committee	Feb 12, 2026
H.R. 6985 119th Congress	Facilitating Useful Loss Limitations to Help Our Unique Service Economy Act (FULL HOUSE Act) · Rep. Max Miller (R-OH) Bipartisan companion to the FAIR BET Act with the same goal — reinstating the 100% wagering-loss deduction rule in IRC § 165(d) — introduced by Rep. Max Miller (R-OH) with Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV). Referred to Ways and Means with no further standalone action recorded; its text was incorporated into the broader H.R. 10357 tax package that the committee approved 38-5 on September 16, 2026. The bill's full title states its purpose as amending the tax code "to reinstate the rules for wagering losses." [149],[150]	In committee	Jan 8, 2026
H.R. 2087 119th Congress	Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet Act of 2025 (SAFE Bet Act) · Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) Would set federal minimum standards for state-licensed sports betting, including a federal ban on sports betting operating outside an approved state program and periodic (roughly every three years) DOJ review/approval of state programs. A companion bill, S. 1033, was introduced two days later by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee; neither bill had moved out of committee as of this research. The bill's full title states its purpose as establishing "minimum Federal standards for sports betting." [151],[152]	In committee	Mar 11, 2025

Sources

18 U.S.C. § 1084 - Transmission of wagering information; penalties · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
New Hampshire Lottery Commission v. Rosen, No. 19-1835 (1st Cir.) · U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · court · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“we hold that the controversy before us is justiciable and that the Wire Act's prohibitions are limited to bets or wagers on sporting events or contests”
Whether the Wire Act Applies to Non-Sports Gambling · U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel · ag opinion · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“Interstate transmissions of wire communications that do not relate to a "sporting event or contest" fall outside the reach of the Wire Act.”
Reconsidering Whether the Wire Act Applies to Non-Sports Gambling · U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel · ag opinion · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“not uniformly limited to gambling on sporting events or contests”
18 U.S.C. § 224 - Bribery in sporting contests · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person”
28 U.S.C. § 3701 - Definitions (PASPA) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
28 U.S.C. § 3702 - Unlawful sports gambling · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“a governmental entity to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact”
28 U.S.C. § 3704 - Applicability to States (PASPA exemptions) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“conducted exclusively in casinos located in a municipality”
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018) · Leagle.com (hosting U.S. Supreme Court opinion text) · court · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“generally makes it unlawful for a State to "authorize" sports gambling schemes”
31 U.S.C. § 5361 - Congressional findings and purpose (UIGEA) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“primarily funded through personal use of payment system instruments”
31 U.S.C. § 5362 - Definitions (UIGEA) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“All winning outcomes reflect the relative knowledge and skill of the participants”
12 CFR § 233.1 - Authority, purpose, and scope (Regulation GG) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · regulation · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“designated payment systems”
7 U.S.C. § 7a-2 - Derivatives transaction execution facilities (event-contract special rule) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“may determine that such agreements, contracts, or transactions are contrary to the public interest”
17 CFR § 40.11 - Review of event contracts based upon certain excluded commodities · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · regulation · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“shall not list for trading or accept for clearing”
10 Takeaways from the CFTC Event Contracts Proposed Rulemaking · WilmerHale · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only; the CFTC's own press release (cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9310-26) returned repeated HTTP 429 errors and could not be fetched directly.
“Public comments are due July 27”
25 U.S.C. § 2701 - Findings (Indian Gaming Regulatory Act) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“a principal goal of Federal Indian policy is to promote tribal economic development”
25 U.S.C. § 2710 - Tribal gaming ordinances and Class III compacts · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“the State shall negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith to enter into such a compact.”
15 U.S.C. § 3001 - Congressional findings and policy (Interstate Horseracing Act) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“primary responsibility for determining what forms of gambling may legally take place within their borders.”
15 U.S.C. § 3002 - Definitions (Interstate Horseracing Act) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“placed or transmitted by an individual in one State via telephone or other electronic media”
15 U.S.C. § 3054 - Anti-doping and medication control program (Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“implement and enforce the horseracing anti-doping and medication control program and the racetrack safety program”
Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 · Federal Trade Commission · government other · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“The FTC is given broad oversight over the Authority.”
15 U.S.C. § 1171 - Definitions (gambling devices) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“an essential part of which is a drum or reel with insignia thereon”
15 U.S.C. § 1172 - Transportation of gambling devices · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“It shall be unlawful knowingly to transport any gambling device to any place in a State”
18 U.S.C. § 1952 - Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate unlawful activity”
18 U.S.C. § 1953 - Interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“knowingly carries or sends in interstate or foreign commerce any record, paraphernalia, ticket”
18 U.S.C. § 1955 - Prohibition of illegal gambling businesses · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“is a violation of the law of a State or political subdivision in which it is conducted;”
26 U.S.C. § 4401 - Imposition of tax (wagering excise tax) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“an excise tax equal to 0.25 percent of the amount of such wager”
26 U.S.C. § 4411 - Imposition of tax (wagering occupational tax) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“a special tax of $500 per year”
31 U.S.C. § 5312 - Definitions and application (Bank Secrecy Act) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“a casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment with an annual gaming revenue of more than $1,000,000 which—”
31 CFR § 1021.100 - General definitions (casinos) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · regulation · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“every person which is involved in a transaction to which this chapter applies with a casino”
31 CFR § 1021.311 - Currency transaction reports by casinos · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · regulation · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
26 U.S.C. § 165(d) - Losses; wagering losses · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“shall be equal to 90 percent of the amount of such losses during such taxable year”
26 U.S.C. § 6041 - Information at source · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“of $2,000 or more in any calendar year”
Kalshi ready to add prop-like contests in wake of Super Bowl · SBC Americas · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only; describes Kalshi's January 2025 championship-futures self-certification and February 2025 expansion to single-game/prop contracts.
Robinhood rolls out prediction markets with sports contracts · Axios · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
7 U.S.C. § 2 — Jurisdiction of Commission; liability of principal for act of agent; Commodity Futures Trading Commission · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“shall have exclusive jurisdiction, except to the extent otherwise provided”
7 U.S.C. § 7a-2 — Designated contract markets (Special rule for review of event contracts) · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute · statute · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“the Commission may determine that such agreements, contracts, or transactions are contrary to the public interest”
Attorney General Brown Urges CFTC to Recognize State Authority Over Sports-Related Prediction Markets · Maryland Office of the Attorney General · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“The CFTC should recognize the limits of its power and affirm that states have the expertise”
Tribes Sue Kalshi, Robinhood Over IGRA and Sports Prediction Markets · Sportico · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only; describes July 2025 IGRA suit by Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria and Picayune Rancheria.
Event Contracts; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule (91 FR 5386) · CFTC · regulation · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“withdrawing these proposed rules to reconsider them in light of various forms of state regulatory actions”
CFTC Issues Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Prediction Markets (Release 9194-26) · CFTC · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“will exercise its exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets”
CFTC sues Illinois, Arizona and Connecticut in escalating fight for jurisdiction over prediction markets · The Block · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only; underlying CFTC release number not independently confirmed.
“filed lawsuits challenging the actions of Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois against CFTC-registered designated contract markets”
Docket for No. 26-299, Flaherty v. KalshiEX, LLC · Supreme Court of the United States · court · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Docket confirms petition for certiorari (from Third Circuit's KalshiEX v. Flaherty) docketed Sept. 8, 2026; question presented concerns swap classification and CEA preemption of state gambling law.
Ninth Circuit says Kalshi sports contracts aren't swaps, splitting with Third Circuit · The Defiant · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Secondary report. The official opinion was independently inspected in the October 12 review; see ca9-assad-opinion for primary evidence and procedural limits.
“Ninth Circuit has now teed up a circuit split that calls out for resolution by the Supreme Court”
KalshiEX LLC v. Assad, No. 25-7516 (Aug. 28, 2026) · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · court · retrieved Oct 12, 2026
Published opinion inspected directly; affirms dissolution of sports-contract preliminary relief and remands election-contract issues. Does not resolve nationwide legality.
Kalshi loses appeal over Ohio and Tennessee sports betting laws, widening circuit split · The Block · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Iowa loss for Kalshi adds to string of federal court troubles · SBC Americas · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only; covers Sept. 8, 2026 Iowa ruling and same-day Tenth Circuit denial of Kalshi's injunction request against Utah.
Event Contracts, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (89 FR 48968) · CFTC · regulation · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Proposed amendments to Rule 40.11 to define which event contracts "involve gaming"; withdrawn Feb. 2026.
District Court Vacates CFTC Prohibition on Trading 'Congressional Control Contracts' Predicting Election Results · Davis Wright Tremaine · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only (law firm client alert summarizing Judge Cobb's Sept. 6, 2024 opinion, No. 1:23-cv-03257)
“And thus the Court has no occasion to consider whether they are contrary to the public interest”
New Mexico tribes sue Kalshi over questions of legal sports betting · The Lines · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only; covers suit by the Mescalero Apache Tribe and the Pueblos of Isleta, Pojoaque and Sandia.
Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi, Inc., 9th Cir. No. 25-7504 (Sept. 16, 2026) · Leagle · court · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only (opinion-database copy, not cross-checked against the 9th Circuit's own site)
CFTC Sues Kentucky to Prevent Violation of CFTC's Exclusive Jurisdiction (Release 9260-26) · CFTC · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“obstructs Congress' decision to federally preempt state law”
CFTC Disapproves Self-Certification of KalshiEX LLC's Congressional Control Contracts (Release 8780-23) · CFTC · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“involve gaming and activity that is unlawful under state law and are contrary to the public interest”
Federal court clears Kalshi to list election betting contracts, denies CFTC's motion · The Block · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“the public will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay pending appeal”
CFTC Acting Chairman Pham Announces Prediction Markets Roundtable (Release 9046-25) · CFTC · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“the undue delay and anti-innovation policies of the past several years have severely restricted”
Polymarket Acquires CFTC Regulated QCEX, Returns to the US as Environment Embraces Innovation · Crowdfund Insider · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
NCAA 'deeply concerned' by launch of college football prediction markets · Casino Beats · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“we are deeply concerned by unregulated and unprotected markets”
CFTC Withdraws Proposed Rule and Staff Advisory on Event Contracts · Orrick InfoBytes · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only; confirms the Sept. 30, 2025 staff advisory withdrawn alongside the 2024 proposed rule.
Prediction market Polymarket relaunches in the US for sports and elections · Decrypt · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only.
First congressional hearing on sports event contracts · iGaming Business · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Senate confirms CFTC Chair pick Michael Selig as agency takes larger role regulating crypto · The Block · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Kalshi self-certifies markets on NCAA transfer portal · Covers.com · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only; quotes NCAA President Charlie Baker saying the NCAA "vehemently opposes college sports prediction markets."
CFTC Seeks to Enjoin Arizona Criminal and Civil Enforcement Against Prediction Markets (Release 9208-26) · CFTC · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“The CFTC has filed complaints against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois, seeking declaratory judgments”
Judge bars Arizona from regulating prediction market operators and pauses prosecution of Kalshi · Click Orlando (AP) · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
CFTC sues New York over prediction market crackdown as 38 AGs back Massachusetts' Kalshi case · The Block · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only.
Massachusetts: Skeptical Supreme [Judicial] Court could favor state in Kalshi case · CDC Gaming · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only; covers May 4, 2026 oral argument in Commonwealth v. KalshiEX, No. SJC-13906.
CFTC Files Amicus Brief in Sixth Circuit Defending Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Prediction Markets (Release 9230-26) · CFTC · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“the CFTC will not allow overzealous state governments to undermine”
Tensions over prediction markets dominate Senate hearing · Roll Call · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
DraftKings launches own prediction markets exchange as consumer volume exceeds $3 billion · The Block · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only.
CFTC Proposes Amendments to Regulation 40.11 and New Appendix F for Event Contracts (Release 9249-26) · CFTC · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“gives the Commission a durable, transparent framework to identify the contracts Congress directed us to scrutinize”
Prediction markets hearing: Congress, action, legislation, clarity · Covers.com · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Coalition of 44 state attorneys general says CFTC lacks authority over sports prediction markets · The Block · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only.
“The CFTC in the Proposed Rule goes well beyond its statutory authority”
FanDuel joins prediction market fray as new app goes live · Front Office Sports · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Brief of Ohio and 38 Other States as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Flaherty v. KalshiEX, LLC, No. 26-299 · Supreme Court of the United States · court · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
page not fetched (PDF); date, signatories and reliance on Murphy v. NCAA confirmed via search-result summary of the filing.
Docket No. 26-299, Flaherty v. KalshiEX, LLC · U.S. Supreme Court · government other · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Third Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction in Favor of Kalshi · Lowenstein Sandler · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Is Kalshi legal in New Jersey? · CoinStats · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
CFTC Press Release 9206-26: CFTC Sues Trio of States to Reaffirm its Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Prediction Markets · Commodity Futures Trading Commission · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
title confirmed by direct fetch of the CFTC press-release listing; full release body returned an error on retry and was not independently re-extracted
CFTC sues Illinois, Arizona and Connecticut in escalating fight for jurisdiction over prediction markets · The Block · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Federal court grants CFTC, Kalshi preliminary injunctions against Illinois · SBC Americas · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only; ruling not independently verified against the court's own order
KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, Nos. 26-3196, 26-5235 (6th Cir. Sept. 25, 2026) · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · court · retrieved Oct 12, 2026
Official published opinion inspected; cover confirms district dockets and decision date. Disposition affirms Ohio denial, vacates Tennessee grant and remands; preliminary relief, not a nationwide final merits judgment.
Kalshiex LLC v. Schuler et al, 2:25-cv-01165 · Justia Dockets · filing · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Order, KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, No. 26-3196 (6th Cir.) · Gongwer Ohio (republishing a 6th Cir. order) · court · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Kentucky AG sues Kalshi, Polymarket and VGW Holdings · The Block · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
PR 26-39 · Office of the Tennessee Attorney General · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“This is a great win for Tennessee.”
Kalshi sues Tennessee, alleging conflicting stance on sports contracts · SBC Americas · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
AG Skrmetti fights to protect Tennessee's authority to regulate sports wagering · Gaming Intelligence · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Kalshi files preemptive lawsuit against Iowa after attorney general meeting · Sports Betting Dime · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
KalshiEX, LLC v. Brenna Bird, et al., No. 26-2874 · Justia Dockets · filing · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Kalshi loses Iowa injunction request · SBC Americas · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Kalshi sues Montana · Missoula Current · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, KalshiEX LLC v. Knudsen, No. 6:26-cv-00028-DWM · U.S. District Court for the District of Montana · filing · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi, Inc., 9th Cir. No. 25-7504 (Sept. 16, 2026) · Leagle · court · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only (opinion-database summary, not independently cross-checked against the 9th Circuit's own site)
Underdog sues states, ditches DFS licenses in prediction markets push · SBC Americas · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Underdog sues five states, abandons DFS licenses · CDC Gaming · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Underdog sues Connecticut after state attacks prediction markets · SBC Americas · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad, No. 25-7516 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2026) · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · court · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Nevada federal court dissolves Kalshi's preliminary injunction · Sports Betting Dime · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Nevada judge tells Kalshi it's time to pull sports contracts · SBC Americas · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Docket No. 26-338, Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Dreitzer · U.S. Supreme Court · government other · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Kalshi Seeks Ninth Circuit Rehearing as Robinhood Takes Nevada Fight to Supreme Court · DeFi Rate · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Arizona Sues Kalshi After Kalshi Sued Arizona · Front Office Sports · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
KalshiEx LLC v. Cox et al, 2:26-cv-00151 · Justia Dockets · filing · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
H.B. 243, Gambling Revisions · Utah State Legislature · bill · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Utah/10th Circuit denies Kalshi's emergency motion for appeal, allows state to enforce its gambling laws · CDC Gaming · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
New Mexico tribes sue Kalshi over questions of legal sports betting · The Lines · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
AG Nessel Secures Order Temporarily Halting Unlawful Kalshi Michigan Operations · Michigan Department of Attorney General · ag opinion · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
AG Nessel Secures Second Order Halting Unlawful Kalshi Sports Wagers in Michigan · Michigan Department of Attorney General · ag opinion · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Dana Nessel v. KalshiEX LLC, No. 26-1639 · Justia Dockets · filing · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Connecticut Sues Kalshi to Stop Illegal, Unlicensed Sports Betting · Connecticut Office of the Attorney General · ag opinion · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
CFTC Press Release 9220-26: CFTC Sues Wisconsin to Reaffirm its Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Prediction Markets · Commodity Futures Trading Commission · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
title confirmed by direct fetch of the CFTC press-release listing; full release body not independently retrieved
Decision and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Change Venue, Motions to Intervene, and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Case No. 26-C-749 · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin · court · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
USA, et al. v. State of Wisconsin, et al., No. 26-2675 · Justia Dockets · filing · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Washington sues online betting platform Kalshi for illegal gambling · Washington State Office of the Attorney General · ag opinion · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Judge orders Kalshi to cease numerous Washington operations · Washington State Office of the Attorney General · ag opinion · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Governor Hochul and Attorney General James Announce New York Has Sued Kalshi · New York Office of the Attorney General · ag opinion · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“has sued KalshiEX, LLC (Kalshi) for running an illegal gambling operation”
CFTC Press Release 9233-26 · Commodity Futures Trading Commission · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“The CFTC is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the law from going into effect on August 1, 2026.”
Judge blocks Minnesota from enforcing prediction market ban in win for Kalshi, Polymarket · The Block · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“likely at least partially preempted by the CEA”
CFTC Press Release 9260-26 · Commodity Futures Trading Commission · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“Kentucky is the latest state attempting to shut down federally-regulated event contracts.”
Kentucky AG files lawsuits against companies allegedly operating illegal betting, gambling platforms · WKYT · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
CFTC Press Release 9251-26: CFTC Sues New Mexico as the State Becomes the Latest Attempting to Infringe on Federal Jurisdiction · Commodity Futures Trading Commission · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“New Mexico is the latest state seeking to nullify black letter law and decades of judicial precedent.”
CFTC files lawsuit against New Mexico in predictions battle · AffPapa · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
New Mexico Attorney General sues Kalshi over illegal sports betting · Covers.com · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“lawful gaming activities in New Mexico can only be run through tribal-state gaming compacts or state-regulated licensing”
CFTC Press Release 9238-26: CFTC Sues to Block State Enforcement in Rhode Island Amid Ongoing Efforts to Preserve Jurisdiction · Commodity Futures Trading Commission · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“This power grab ignores the law and decades of precedent.”
CFTC sues Rhode Island over prediction market regulation · Yahoo Finance · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Rhode Island sues Kalshi, Polymarket · SBC Americas · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
News: Judge Rules Against Kalshi In Maryland Case · Next Event Horizon (Substack) · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Maryland enforcement efforts against Kalshi paused until appeal ruling · Sports Betting Dime · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Fourth Circuit Panel Signals Doubts on Kalshi's Injunction Request in Maryland · DeFi Rate · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Office of the Attorney General Commission Report, May 2026 · Maryland Office of the Attorney General · government other · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Arizona AG files criminal lawsuit against Kalshi · SBC Americas · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Massachusetts v. Kalshi: New Court Ruling Favors States in Prediction Market Litigation · Sports Litigation Alert · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
CFTC Press Release 9218-26: CFTC Sues New York Over Prediction Markets Amid Ongoing Efforts to Preserve Jurisdiction · Commodity Futures Trading Commission · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“The CFTC will not allow overzealous state governments to undermine the agency's longstanding authority over these markets.”
CFTC Sues New York to Block Oversight of Prediction Markets · Insurance Journal · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
CFTC Press Release 9208-26: CFTC Seeks to Enjoin Arizona Criminal and Civil Enforcement Against Prediction Markets · Commodity Futures Trading Commission · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“The CFTC is committed to vigorously defending its exclusive authority over prediction markets.”
CFTC Press Release 9211-26: Temporary Restraining Order Blocks Arizona Criminal Enforcement Proceedings on Prediction Markets · Commodity Futures Trading Commission · regulator page · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
title confirmed by direct fetch of the CFTC press-release listing; full release body not independently retrieved
Kalshi Oregon Gambling Loss Class Action Lawsuit · OpenClassActions · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Betting on congressional elections is lawful, federal appeals court rules · NBC San Diego · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
CFTC appeals ruling that blocked its attempt to halt Kalshi's election contracts · The Block · press · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
KalshiEX LLC v. CFTC, No. 24-5205 · Justia Dockets · filing · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
CFTC Folds Its Hand in Election Betting Showdown with Kalshi · Finance Magnates · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
CFTC Drops Appeal Against Kalshi · Cryptometer · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
Docket for No. 23-862, West Flagler Associates, Ltd., et al. v. Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, et al. · Supreme Court of the United States · court · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“Petition DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.”
Supreme Court Denies Cert in Florida Tribal Sports Betting Case · Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck · secondary · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
secondary source only; the D.C. Circuit's opinion in 71 F.4th 1059 (2023) could not be retrieved directly after repeated access failures at cadc.uscourts.gov, courtlistener.com and Google Scholar, so this law-firm summary (which quotes the opinion) is used instead.
“allocation of criminal and civil jurisdiction between states and tribes with respect to enforcing those laws”
H.R. 10357, Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act (119th Congress) · U.S. Government Publishing Office · bill · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform the tax treatment of digital assets, and for other purposes.”
S. 4160, Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act (119th Congress) · U.S. Government Publishing Office · bill · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“To amend the Commodity Exchange Act to prohibit certain event contracts involving sports and casino-style games.”
H.R. 4304, Fair Accounting for Income Realized from Betting Earnings Taxation Act (119th Congress) · U.S. Government Publishing Office · bill · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to wagering losses.”
Bill Status (actions): H.R. 4304, 119th Congress · U.S. Government Publishing Office / Library of Congress · bill · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“Motion to Discharge Committee filed by Ms. Titus”
H.R. 6985, Facilitating Useful Loss Limitations to Help Our Unique Service Economy Act (119th Congress) · U.S. Government Publishing Office · bill · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reinstate the rules for wagering losses.”
Bill Status (actions): H.R. 6985, 119th Congress · U.S. Government Publishing Office / Library of Congress · bill · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.”
H.R. 2087, Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet Act of 2025 (119th Congress) · U.S. Government Publishing Office · bill · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“To establish minimum Federal standards for sports betting, and for other purposes.”
S. 1033, Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet Act of 2025 (119th Congress) · U.S. Government Publishing Office · bill · retrieved Oct 11, 2026
“To establish minimum Federal standards for sports betting, and for other purposes.”