industry/LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Kalshi victorious in federal appeals court, event contracts not gaming regulator’s remit

Kalshi wins an important victory in a federal appeals court, pushing back against New Jersey’s gaming regulator Two judges backed Kalshi, while a third dissented, arguing that the platforms’ product was "indistinguishable from gambling"

Written by Casino House Group Editorial Team

Published on April 9, 2026

Summary

Kalshi wins an important victory in a federal appeals court, pushing back against New Jersey’s gaming regulator
Two judges backed Kalshi, while a third dissented, arguing that the platforms’ product was "indistinguishable from gambling"
Nevada delivered a diametrically opposed decision, extending an ongoing prohibition, however

Kalshi has tilted at this particular legal argument for a long while now, with the company arguing time and again that gambling regulators such as the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) have no say or right to intervene in the cases involving sports event contracts.

New Jersey loses crucial ruling against Kalshi in gambling, not gambling saga

The DGE has argued that prediction markets on sports events are just a round-about way to skirt gambling regulation, but a federal appeals court has now disagreed with this argument. The US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled with a 2-1 decision that sports-related event contracts are indeed swaps and they fall under the remit of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) under the Commodity Exchange Act. According to the court, the CFTC preempts gambling laws in the state of New Jersey, and the state constitution’s prohibition on collegiate sports betting. Chief Judge Michael Chagares and Circuit Judge David Porterided with Kalshi in the matter, upholding a legal argument put forward by Kalshi in courts all over the country. However, Circuit Judge Jane Roth did not see the matter this way, and delivered a conclusion much aligned with what the DGE has itself put forward - that Kalshi’s offerings are virtually indistinguishable from the betting products available on online sportsbooks.

Opposing opinions mean no end in sight for the debate

I could have bet on the winner (game outcome). I could have also bet on whether I believed Tampa Bay would win by more than 2.5 points (point spread), whether the two teams would collectively score 45 or more points (game props), or whether former Tampa Bay wide receiver Mike Evans would score a touchdown (player props), Roth said. While this victory may be seen as a major milestone for Kalshi, the company is far from having won the argument more broadly. Nevada, for example, extended a prohibition on the platform’s sports event contracts in the Silver State. Once again, the conflicting outcomes in two of the country’s major gambling hubs point out that the argument will carry on and that a US Supreme Court hearing may be necessary at the end.