International Gambling Regulators Ask SCOTUS to Take the Prediction Market Case
Two associations representing gambling regulators — the International Association of Gaming Regulators (IAGR) and the North American Gaming Regulators Association (NAGRA) — filed with the Supreme Court on October 3 in support of New Jersey's certiorari petition, urging the Court to take up the prediction market preemption question. The filing adds institutional weight from the gambling regulatory community to the growing list of parties asking SCOTUS to resolve the circuit split. New Jersey, Robinhood, and Crypto.com have all filed cert petitions; 20-plus states and now the gambling regulator associations are backing review.
The International Association of Gaming Regulators (IAGR) and the North American Gaming Regulators Association (NAGRA) filed with the Supreme Court on October 3, 2026 in support of New Jersey's petition for certiorari, urging the Court to take up the question of whether state gambling laws can be applied to prediction market sports event contracts. The two associations represent gambling regulatory bodies across North America and internationally; their filing adds the institutional voice of the professional gambling-regulation community to the chorus of parties asking the Supreme Court to resolve the circuit split. The filing supports New Jersey's September 2 cert petition, which seeks to overturn the Third Circuit ruling that sided with Kalshi and the CFTC on federal preemption. The gambling regulators' core interest is jurisdictional: if CFTC registration allows any operator to offer sports betting products nationwide without state gambling licenses, the entire state-based gambling regulatory framework that these associations' members administer is undermined.
The IAGR and NAGRA filing is part of a broadening coalition pressing for SCOTUS review. New Jersey filed its cert petition on September 2 (from the Third Circuit loss); Robinhood filed September 9 and Crypto.com also filed from the Ninth Circuit ruling; more than 20 states filed amicus briefs supporting state regulatory authority at various stages of the litigation; gaming-state lawmakers have publicly urged the Court to take the case; and now the gambling regulator associations have added their support. The breadth of the coalition supporting review is itself an argument for cert: the Supreme Court is more likely to take a case when a wide range of institutional stakeholders — states, regulators, legislators — signal that the question has broad national importance and that lower-court disorder is causing real governance problems. The one notable absence from the pro-review coalition is any party arguing against SCOTUS taking the case; even Kalshi, which won in the Third Circuit, has an interest in a definitive national ruling given that it has now lost in the Ninth and Sixth Circuits.
The gambling regulators' involvement highlights the institutional stakes that extend beyond the individual platforms. State gambling regulators administer licensing regimes that generate significant tax revenue, enforce responsible-gambling requirements, conduct operator background checks, and police problem gambling. The prediction market platforms' position — that CFTC registration exempts them from all of this — represents an existential challenge to the state gambling regulatory model if it prevails nationally. IAGR's international membership adds a global dimension: gambling regulators in Europe, where the Czech Republic, Belgium, France, Romania, Spain, and Germany have all moved against the platforms, share the concern that a US federal-preemption victory for the platforms could become a model that prediction market operators cite in arguing for regulatory exemptions in other jurisdictions. The gambling regulator community has a coordinated interest in the Supreme Court affirming that gambling-like products are subject to gambling regulation regardless of how they are packaged.
The procedural posture remains unchanged by the filing: the Supreme Court has not yet acted on any of the cert petitions, and Kalshi's response briefs are still pending. The gambling regulators' filing, like the states' amicus briefs, is a signal to the Court rather than a trigger for action — the Court will conference the petitions once all responses are in, likely in late October or November. But the accumulation of supporting filings from states, legislators, and now gambling regulators strengthens the case that this is a question of exceptional national importance warranting the Court's attention. If the Court grants cert, the gambling regulators' arguments — about the practical consequences for state licensing regimes and consumer protection — would likely feature in the merits briefing as the concrete real-world stakes of the abstract preemption question. The prediction market cases are evolving from a dispute between platforms and states into a broader institutional confrontation between the federal commodity-regulation framework and the entire apparatus of gambling regulation.
Operators mentioned in this article
Recent updates
Google Adds Prediction Market Ad Policy — CFTC License Required, Ads Blocked in Five States
Google published a dedicated prediction markets section in its advertising policy on October 15, requiring domestic prediction market operators to hold a CFTC Designated Contract Market license to run ads — a requirement that favors Kalshi and Polymarket US over unlicensed rivals. Google also bars prediction market ads targeting five states where enforcement is most active: Connecticut (added recently), Michigan and New York (July), Ohio (June), and Nevada (earlier in the year). The policy makes Google's advertising platform mirror the state-by-state enforcement map, using commercial access as a de facto regulatory layer.
Kalshi Partners With Signify to Police Athlete Harassment, Codifies Anti-Abuse Rule
Kalshi announced a partnership with Signify Group on October 15 to monitor social media for abuse and threats directed at athletes, coaches, and sports personnel across the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and ATP Tour. Kalshi notified the CFTC of a new rule, dated October 13, that codifies athlete harassment as an 'impermissible activity' on its platform, with sanctions up to financial penalties and permanent account closure. The move follows a September appeal by five major leagues and their players' unions for lifetime bans on abusive bettors, and positions Kalshi ahead of the integrity concerns that sports leagues and regulators have raised about prediction market sports contracts.
CFTC Moves to Classify Event Contracts as Swaps — Attempting to Settle the Core SCOTUS Question by Rule
The CFTC, led by Chairman Michael Selig, moved on October 9 to explicitly classify event contracts as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, which would place prediction market contracts squarely under federal swap regulation. The scope covers sports, political, cultural, and weather contracts, while a separate provision excludes casino-style gambling and sportsbook wagers. Selig said the aim is to remove 'any ambiguity' about these contracts. The action targets the exact question dividing the federal circuits and now before the Supreme Court — whether event contracts are 'swaps' — and represents an attempt by the federal regulator to settle that question by rule while the courts remain split.