Connecticut Federal Court Denies Kalshi's PI — With a Novel Argument: Sports Event Contracts Are Not 'Swaps' at All
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has denied Kalshi's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the state to enforce its gambling laws against prediction market sports contracts. Judge Vernon D. Oliver ruled that Kalshi's sports-event contracts do not satisfy the statutory definition of a 'swap' under the Commodity Exchange Act — because they depend on event outcomes, not on whether an event occurs. Kalshi has appealed to the Second Circuit, giving that court two simultaneous Kalshi appeals. Gaming law attorney Daniel Wallach says both Second Circuit cases could be consolidated for oral argument. The ruling creates a direct circuit conflict with a Third Circuit ruling from April that found Kalshi's contracts ARE swaps.
Judge Vernon D. Oliver of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has denied Kalshi's motion for a preliminary injunction, allowing Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection to enforce state gambling laws against Kalshi's sports-event contracts. The ruling is the fifth judicial decision to go against Kalshi on PI motions in 2026, joining Michigan, Nevada, New York, and Washington — but it introduces a statutory interpretation argument that none of the other rulings relied on. Judge Oliver found that Kalshi's sports contracts do not satisfy the Commodity Exchange Act's definition of a 'swap' in the first place: 'Kalshi's sports-event contracts fail to satisfy this portion of the statutory definition of a swap because they do not depend on whether an underlying sporting event occurs, fails to occur, or occurs to a particular extent. Instead, Kalshi's sports-event contracts depend on the event's outcomes or discrete in-game occurrences.' The distinction is narrow but legally significant: a contract that pays out if a team wins is not the same as a contract that pays out if a game is played. The CEA definition of a swap, Oliver concluded, covers the latter but not the former — which would mean Kalshi's contracts are outside federal derivatives jurisdiction structurally, not just because of preemption doctrine.
The ruling creates a direct circuit conflict. In April, the Third Circuit ruled that Kalshi's sports event contracts ARE swaps under the CEA — the opposite conclusion on the same statutory question. A circuit split on whether prediction market sports contracts meet the CEA definition of a swap is the clearest possible pathway to Supreme Court review, since the resolution of the same federal statutory question cannot differ by geography. Gaming law and sports betting attorney Daniel Wallach noted that Kalshi is now involved in two separate Second Circuit appeals — the New York case from July 7, where Judge Analisa Torres also denied Kalshi's PI and ruled the CEA does not preempt New York gambling law, and the Connecticut case appealed this week. Wallach said both Second Circuit cases could be combined for purposes of oral argument, which would produce a single authoritative ruling on multiple grounds simultaneously. Traders on prediction market platforms are already pricing a 64% probability of Supreme Court review by the end of 2026.
The Connecticut background adds detail to the legal record. The state's Department of Consumer Protection Gaming Division issued cease-and-desist notices to Kalshi, Robinhood, and Crypto.com on December 2 for alleged unlicensed sports wagering — the same day that Polymarket's US platform (Polymarket QCEX) launched. Kalshi filed suit the following day, arguing its event contracts fall under CFTC oversight as a designated contract market licensee. Judge Oliver's ruling rejects that argument on two grounds: the contracts do not satisfy the CEA definition of a swap, and Congress did not displace Connecticut's authority to regulate sports betting. Oliver also pointed to Kalshi's own marketing, which described the platform as offering 'legal sports betting nationwide' despite sports wagering being traditionally regulated at the state level — citing Kalshi's own language as evidence that the products functioned as wagering regardless of their formal regulatory classification. A Kalshi spokesperson said the company 'disagrees with the Court's decision.'
The scale of state resistance has grown well beyond the eleven states in active litigation. At least 34 states and territories have filed amicus briefs backing state control over sports-event contracts, reflecting a broad political consensus that federal recognition of such contracts as swaps would significantly weaken local gambling regulation frameworks. The Connecticut ruling, combined with the existing losses in Michigan, Nevada, New York, and Washington, means Kalshi has now lost PI motions in all five jurisdictions where federal judges have ruled on the merits, with the sole win coming from Arizona in May — where Judge Liburdi applied a three-prong preemption analysis that no other court has followed. The NFL season begins in September, the CFTC's comment window on its proposed NPRM closed July 27, and the August 12 Michigan geofencing deadline arrives tomorrow. Against that backdrop, the Connecticut ruling adds a new and potentially more durable legal theory — the swap-definition argument — to the arsenal of states seeking to block prediction market sports contracts without relying solely on preemption doctrine.
Operators mentioned in this article
Recent updates
Utah Files Felony Charges Against Kalshi and Its Founders — Second State to Criminally Charge a Platform
Utah filed criminal charges against Kalshi and its two co-founders, Tarek Mansour and Luana Lopes Lara, on October 28 — 13 felonies and a misdemeanor, including a second-degree 'pattern of unlawful criminal activity' count and 12 counts of online gambling promotion. The charges stem from a September sting in which an undercover agent placed 12 sports wagers verified to be in Utah. The CFTC sued Utah the day before to block state enforcement, its tenth such suit. Utah is the second state after Arizona to criminally charge Kalshi, and the first to charge the founders personally. Kalshi called it a 'crazy overreach.'
NBA Names Kalshi and Polymarket Preferred Exchanges — Leaving the NFL Alone in Opposition
The NBA announced on October 26 that it has named Kalshi and Polymarket its 'preferred prediction market exchanges,' signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding with the CFTC on basketball integrity, and expanded its DraftKings deal to include prediction markets — the first league to extend a sportsbook partnership into the category. The exchange deals bar league and team personnel from trading NBA contracts, limit permissible markets, and require sharing of suspicious-trading data, in exchange for NBA intellectual property and official data. The NBA joins MLB, the NHL, and MLS as partnered leagues, leaving the NFL as the lone major holdout — and the only league fighting the platforms in court.
CFTC Chair Says Agency Is Watching Prediction Markets for Manipulation Ahead of Midterms
CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said on October 23 that the agency is closely monitoring prediction markets for manipulation ahead of the November 3 midterms, and that it is separately scrutinizing oil market trading tied to President Trump's announcements about the war in Iran. Combined midterm open interest on Kalshi and Polymarket stood at $250 million as of October 18, with Kalshi holding 84%. Selig acknowledged the agency often catches political figures attempting to trade 'oftentimes after the fact.' The remarks highlight the CFTC's dual and somewhat conflicting role as both the platforms' federal protector and their manipulation watchdog, at a time when the agency has shed enforcement staff.