SCOTUS September 28 Long Conference: First Opportunity to Take the Prediction Market Case
The Supreme Court's September 28 'long conference' — the Court's first conference of the new term — is the first opportunity for the justices to consider whether to grant certiorari in the prediction market cases currently on the docket. New Jersey filed its petition on September 2 (from the Third Circuit loss); Robinhood filed on September 9 (from the Ninth Circuit loss). Kalshi has 30 days to respond to the New Jersey petition. Polymarket prices a 46% chance SCOTUS accepts a prediction market case by year end. Most analyst projections place a cert decision between November and December 2026.
The Supreme Court of the United States holds its first conference of the new October term on September 28, 2026 — the 'long conference,' at which the justices work through the backlog of cert petitions that accumulated over the summer recess. Two prediction market petitions are on the docket: New Jersey's petition (filed September 2) arising from the Third Circuit's April ruling for Kalshi, and Robinhood's petition (filed September 9) arising from the Ninth Circuit's August 28 ruling against Kalshi. Whether either petition is considered at the September 28 conference depends on the timing of Kalshi's response briefs. Kalshi has 30 days from when each petition was docketed to file a response, which means Kalshi's response to New Jersey's petition may be due around October 2. If Kalshi has not responded by September 28, the conference may distribute the petitions to the October conference schedule rather than acting on them immediately. The Court could also request that Kalshi waive its response, which would allow the petitions to be considered without it.
Even if the long conference cannot formally act on the petitions, September 28 is the first day the justices are back together as a court and discussing the cert docket — and the prediction market cases are already the most discussed pending federal question in the legal commentary. The combination of an explicit circuit split (Third Circuit vs. Ninth Circuit on the same preemption question), high economic stakes ($14B+ weekly contract volume), active enforcement litigation in ten states, and multiple pending petitions creates the standard conditions under which the Supreme Court grants cert. Legal commentators who track SCOTUS cert patterns place the probability of at least one petition being granted at between 60-70%. Polymarket prices the probability at 46% by year end, which reflects both the genuine possibility and the timing uncertainty introduced by Kalshi's pending en banc petition at the Ninth Circuit.
Kalshi's en banc petition — filed simultaneously with Robinhood's SCOTUS petition on September 9 — creates a procedural interaction that may affect the SCOTUS timeline. If the Ninth Circuit grants en banc review, the August 28 panel ruling is vacated and there is no longer a live Ninth Circuit judgment to petition from. Robinhood's SCOTUS petition, which is based on the August 28 ruling, would lose its foundation, and the Ninth Circuit would essentially reset its ruling process with the full 11-judge panel. This outcome — while unlikely at the 1-2% historical en banc grant rate — would temporarily narrow the circuit split to only the Third Circuit, which ruled for Kalshi, with no adverse circuit ruling to conflict with it. SCOTUS is less likely to grant cert when only one circuit has ruled on a question; the circuit split is what makes the case ripe for resolution. The Ninth Circuit is expected to rule on the en banc petition within weeks to months.
From the platforms' perspective, a SCOTUS cert grant is the best available outcome. A favorable SCOTUS ruling would resolve the preemption question nationally, ending the state enforcement litigation in all 10+ jurisdictions simultaneously. A cert denial would leave the circuit split in place and the legal uncertainty unresolved, and the litigation in individual states — Massachusetts, Connecticut, Michigan, New York, Nevada, Washington, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, New Mexico, Missouri — would need to proceed to final judgment in each circuit, potentially producing additional conflicting rulings. For Kalshi, the October 2026-June 2027 SCOTUS term is the critical window: if the Court grants cert this fall and briefs are filed over the winter, oral arguments would be in early 2027 and a decision by June 2027. That timeline would resolve the national legal question before the 2027 NFL season, before any midterm-related state AG turnover takes effect, and before Kalshi's platform growth hits the next inflection point where state enforcement costs become a serious operational constraint.
Operators mentioned in this article
Recent updates
Kalshi's Parlays Drive Back-to-Back $5B Days — and Hand Critics Their Strongest Argument
Kalshi traded a record $5.33 billion on November 7 and $5.36 billion on November 8, with multi-leg parlay-style 'combos' making up roughly 75% of both days' volume. Its 30-day volume topped $100 billion. But the parlay dominance cuts against the platform's legal defense: parlays are a quintessential sportsbook product, and the American Gaming Association has told the Second Circuit that parlays make up about two-thirds of Kalshi's volume and should be treated as sports bets. The implied house edge on 10-plus-leg combos is around 25%, undercutting the argument that these are neutral financial instruments rather than gambling.
Cruz Bill Would Require State or Tribal Approval for Sports Contracts — a Bipartisan Legislative Threat Emerges
Senator Ted Cruz, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, is preparing a bill that would bar federally regulated prediction markets from offering gambling-tied event contracts, including sports, unless a state or tribal government authorizes them. It would not ban the contracts nationwide but would require platforms to obtain approval jurisdiction by jurisdiction, resembling state-by-state sportsbook regulation. The proposal arrives as Democrats take control of both chambers after the midterms, creating a potential bipartisan reckoning: a Republican committee chair and a newly skeptical Democratic majority both eyeing restrictions on a sector that had relied on federal protection.
CFTC Tells Platforms to Stop Geofencing States — Directly Colliding With State Court Orders
The CFTC issued an interpretation on November 5 of its 'impartial access' core principle, telling regulated exchanges including Kalshi and Polymarket to drop state-by-state geographic blocks within 30 days or explain why they cannot. The demand collides head-on with existing state court orders that require the platforms to geofence: Washington ordered Kalshi to geofence in August, and Michigan ordered it to use licensed geolocation to block the state in September, with a $500,000 daily fine for violations. Chairman Michael Selig framed the interpretation as a uniformity requirement. The platforms are now caught between a federal demand to unblock states and state court orders to block them.