Michigan Judge Rules Sports Contracts Likely Aren't Swaps — the First Real Crack in the CFTC Preemption Wall
US District Judge Paul Maloney denied Polymarket and Robinhood a preliminary injunction on 19 June 2026, ruling that sports event contracts are likely not swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and that CFTC authority would 'sweep in activity that has traditionally belonged to state regulators.' It is the first significant court loss for the prediction-market side and turns the scattered district-court rulings into a Sixth Circuit split.
US District Judge Paul L. Maloney of the Western District of Michigan denied Polymarket and Robinhood a preliminary injunction on 19 June 2026, ruling that sports event contracts are likely not swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and therefore likely fall outside the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction. The platforms had sought the injunction to block Michigan regulators — after Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel sued Kalshi alleging illegal online sports betting — on the same federal-preemption theory that won in Arizona on 5 May. Maloney rejected it, writing that the CFTC's broad authority claims "would sweep in activity that has traditionally belonged to state regulators rather than federal financial agencies."
This is the first significant court loss for the prediction-market side in the 2026 wave, and it matters far beyond Michigan. Until now the story had one direction: the CFTC and the platforms won the Arizona preliminary injunction and cited it as persuasive authority everywhere else. Maloney's ruling ends the clean-sweep narrative. The district courts are now openly split — and the split runs inside a single appeals court. Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee all sit in the Sixth Circuit, and the three have gone three different ways: an Ohio judge sided with state regulators, a Tennessee judge backed the platforms, and Maloney has sided with the state. The Sixth Circuit is now expected to take the issue up directly.
The reasoning is what makes the ruling dangerous for the industry, not just the outcome. Maloney did not rule on a technicality; he engaged the core question — are these contracts swaps? — and answered no, at least at the likelihood-of-success stage. That is the exact opposite of Judge Liburdi's Arizona analysis, which found three independent grounds for preemption. Two federal judges looking at materially the same product reached opposite conclusions on the threshold legal question — the definition of an issue headed for higher review. It strengthens every state attorney general who has argued the gambling characterisation survives federal commodity law.
Two structural notes. First, an honest correction to our own prior coverage: we have repeatedly described the CFTC as winning these fights at trial-court level and our litigation scoreboard showed zero state wins. Michigan changes that, and we have updated the scoreboard. The accurate picture as of late June is a genuine split, not a federal sweep. Second, the tribal dimension is escalating: a coalition of more than 30 federally recognised tribes and the Indian Gaming Association filed an amicus brief supporting New York, arguing prediction markets threaten the exclusivity of tribal-state gaming compacts. The realistic path now runs through the Sixth Circuit and, almost certainly, eventually the Supreme Court.
Operators mentioned in this article
CFTC-regulated Kalshi
First fully CFTC-regulated US event-contract exchange.
Crypto / On-chain Polymarket
USDC-settled on Polygon. Largest prediction market by volume.
Broker (Embedded Contracts) Robinhood
Consumer brokerage offering embedded event contracts. Fastest-growing retail prediction market platform in the US.
Recent updates
Massachusetts Supreme Court Ruling on Kalshi Now Imminent — First State High Court Decision on Prediction Markets
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is expected to rule within weeks on whether Kalshi's sports event contracts constitute illegal sports gambling under state law — the first time any US state supreme court has decided this question. The SJC appeared skeptical of Kalshi's CFTC-preemption argument at May 5 oral arguments. A coalition of 38 state attorneys general backed Massachusetts; the CFTC backed Kalshi. The outcome will be the first state apex court ruling on prediction markets anywhere in the country.
27 States Back California Tribes Suing Kalshi Over Sports Contracts Under Indian Gaming Law
Three California tribes are pursuing a separate Ninth Circuit case against Kalshi's sports contracts under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act — a 1988 federal law governing tribal gaming rights that is independent of the CEA preemption arguments in the Nevada, NJ, and Connecticut cases. The Ninth Circuit refused consolidation with the Nevada case. A panel appeared skeptical of Kalshi in July. 27 states plus DC filed amicus supporting the tribes.
SCOTUS Review of Prediction Markets Hits 64% on Polymarket — New Jersey Files Cert Petition September 3
Polymarket's contract on Supreme Court review of prediction markets by year-end jumped from 30% to 64% within hours of the Ninth Circuit's August 28 ruling, generating $976K in volume. New Jersey files its certiorari petition September 3. The Third Circuit vs Ninth Circuit split on the same statutory question is the clearest available trigger for SCOTUS to take the case.