NFL Supports New Jersey in SCOTUS Kalshi Petition

The NFL has filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case connected to New Jersey’s challenge to prediction market platform Kalshi. The league argues that the court’s review is necessary to address how event contracts should be classified and which regulator—state authorities or the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—has jurisdiction.

In the brief, submitted Wednesday, the NFL aligned itself with New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and interim gaming enforcement director Mary Jo Flaherty, who previously asked the Supreme Court to grant review. Their petition seeks clarification on whether prediction market companies fall under state regulatory control or federal oversight, a dispute that has become increasingly consequential for an industry built around trading contracts tied to real-world outcomes.

Key takeaways

• The NFL supports New Jersey’s Supreme Court petition in the Kalshi dispute over who regulates prediction markets: states or the CFTC.
• The league argues certain sporting-event contracts are “highly susceptible to manipulation,” potentially undermining “game integrity.”
• The NFL contends that the dispute also touches labeling questions—whether event contracts on prediction platforms should be treated like “swaps.”
• New Jersey’s case is part of a broader regulatory disagreement; 39 states and the District of Columbia filed a separate amicus brief warning of a “national turf war.”

NFL backs New Jersey’s push for Supreme Court clarity

According to the NFL’s amicus filing, the Supreme Court should grant certiorari in response to New Jersey’s request to resolve questions about prediction market jurisdiction. The league says the case should be reviewed to “preserve game integrity” and “protect customers,” adding that how these contracts are regulated will affect both sports governance and consumer safeguards.

The NFL also points to its own footprint in prediction-market activity. It cites data indicating that during the first Sunday of the football season, “more than half of all prediction-markets’ trading volume” was connected to the NFL—about $1.8 billion out of $3.3 billion, as characterized in the brief. That emphasis is likely meant to underscore the practical stakes: if NFL-related contracts operate in a regulatory gray area, the consequences could ripple through large volumes of trading.

“Manipulable” event contracts and the integrity argument

A central theme in the NFL’s filing is that certain contracts are particularly exposed to manipulation, especially when outcomes can be influenced by individuals who have inside control over performance. The NFL specifically describes the risk that “a single person” could affect results—citing examples such as a player altering performance, a coach changing a team’s lineup, or an official making (or not making) certain calls.

The NFL’s position is that these are among the greatest threats to game integrity on prediction-market platforms. In addition to being framed as a competitive fairness concern, the manipulation argument is also presented as a reason for heightened regulatory scrutiny and clearer boundaries around what types of event-based contracts should be permitted.

Classification, “swaps,” and the role of the CFTC

Alongside manipulation concerns, the NFL says the case raises issues involving the labeling of sporting-event contracts. The league argues that reviewing how these contracts are characterized matters to determining the proper legal treatment and oversight framework.

The brief also emphasizes federal regulatory structure. It argues that there is a lack of what the NFL calls “sensible safeguards” for event contracts from the CFTC, and characterizes federalizing sports-betting regulation—rather than leaving it primarily to states—as a “major question” appropriate for Supreme Court consideration.

That framing matters because prediction markets sit at the intersection of commodities regulation, state gaming rules, and broader consumer-protection expectations. If the Supreme Court decides the CFTC’s authority is broader than states assume (or narrower than the CFTC contends), it could reshape how these platforms operate across jurisdictions.

States warn of an escalating regulatory conflict

The Supreme Court dispute is not only a New Jersey-versus-federal-agency story. The NFL’s filing arrives after 39 U.S. states and the District of Columbia submitted an amicus brief supporting New Jersey’s position, according to a filing posted with the Supreme Court docket. In that brief, the states described the conflict between the CFTC and state authorities as a “national turf war” that can’t be resolved without guidance from the justices.

The states warned that waiting could allow the dispute to escalate, arguing it creates uncertainty about which laws apply and to whom. They also described the matter as a circuit-split problem—suggesting that different legal interpretations across the country have made outcomes inconsistent for platforms and regulators alike. The states asked the Supreme Court to clarify CFTC authority and provide direction to lower courts.

For Kalshi, the regulatory patchwork is part of the company’s argument. After New Jersey filed in September, Cointelegraph reported that a Kalshi spokesperson, Dani Lever, said the company could not be “regulated by 50 different regulators.” The Supreme Court’s involvement would largely determine whether that conflict is resolved through a federal rule of decision or continues to be litigated in parallel state-by-state frameworks.

What happens next in the Kalshi matter

As of Thursday, the Supreme Court had not indicated whether it would grant review. Kalshi has been granted an extension to respond to New Jersey’s filing, with the company having until Nov. 9 to address issues related to jurisdiction, allegedly manipulable event contracts, and consumer protection.

Traders, platform operators, and sports stakeholders will be watching closely for whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case and, if it does, how it addresses the classification and regulatory authority questions at the heart of the dispute.