
A federal appeals court in Philadelphia handed a significant victory to Kalshi Monday, ruling that New Jersey has no claim to regulate the prediction market under existing state gambling laws.
Wagers on Kalshiâincluding those related to sportsâinstead fall under the federal purview of the CFTC, a panel of federal appeals judges ruled 2-1 on Monday.
The appeals court affirmed a preliminary injunction granted last spring against New Jersey, after gambling regulators in the state sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist order. The state regulators had argued Kalshiâs sports-related markets were unregistered sports bets by another name; Kalshi argued they were event contracts exclusively regulated by the CFTC.
Last April, a federal judge in New Jersey sided with Kalshi, ruling New Jersey could not enforce a ban on the platform as the case proceeded to trialâbecuase Kalshi was likely to succeed on the merits of its case.
Today, two appellate judges came to the same conclusion, affirming the judgeâs original ruling. They are Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares, who was appointed to the Third Circuit Appeals Court by former President George W. Bush, and Judge David J. Porter, who was appointed by President Donald Trump.
The sole dissenting judge in todayâs ruling, Jane R. Roth, lambasted her colleaguesâ decision, arguing that although Kalshiâs sports-related wagers are registered as event contracts, that one factor does not change their inherent nature as bets on the outcomes of sports games.
âThe Majority [holds] that Kalshiâs registration as a DCM and branding of its wagers as sports-event contracts are acts of alchemy that transmute its products from sports gambling to futures trading,â Roth dissented. âI see Kalshiâs actions as a performative sleight meant to obscure the reality that Kalshiâs products are sports gambling.â
Roth was appointed to the court in 1991 by former President George H.W. Bush.
Kalshi did not immediately respond to Decryptâs request for comment on todayâs ruling.
As a U.S. Appeals Court decision, todayâs ruling can only be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Courtâunless the 3rd Circuit opts for a rare en banc review, in which every judge on the circuit would collectively rehear the case.
For over a year now, state and federal courts across the country have come to vastly differing conclusions in the jurisdictional dispute over prediction market regulation. Nevada, for instance, recently succeeded in temporarily banning Kalshi in the gambling-dominated state. On Friday, a state judge extended that initial 14-day ban for another two weeks.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has aggressively argued that prediction markets should not have to comply with state gambling laws. Last week, the Trump CFTC, along with the Department of Justice, sued Illinois, Arizona, and Connecticut for attempting to regulate prediction market platforms.
Due to the extent of the disagreement, the matter of prediction market regulation is likely to ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
Share this article
The appeals court ruled that New Jersey does not have the authority to regulate Kalshiâs prediction markets under state gambling laws. The 2-1 decision said those markets fall under federal oversight instead. The court also affirmed a preliminary injunction that had blocked New Jersey from enforcing its cease-and-desist order.
The court said the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, has federal regulatory authority over Kalshiâs markets. New Jersey gambling regulators had argued the products were unregistered sports bets, but Kalshi said they are event contracts regulated only by the CFTC. The appeals judges agreed with Kalshiâs position.
New Jersey regulators sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist order because they believed its sports-related markets were effectively illegal sports bets. They argued the platform was offering unregistered gambling products under another name. Kalshi fought back by saying its contracts are federally regulated event contracts.
New Jersey can only take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court unless the 3rd Circuit agrees to an unusual en banc rehearing. That means the full circuit court would have to decide to review the panelâs ruling. The appeals decision is a major win for Kalshi, but it may not be the final word.
The ruling strengthens Kalshiâs legal position in a wider national dispute over who regulates prediction markets. Courts in different states have reached conflicting conclusions, and some states, like Nevada, have recently moved to block Kalshi. Because of those disagreements, the issue is widely expected to end up before the Supreme Court.





See every story in Crypto â including breaking news and analysis.