NFL asks Supreme Court to bar Kalshi contracts as 39 states join the case

The NFL asked the U.S. Supreme Court to bar Kalshi from offering contracts tied to NFL games, while a coalition of 39 states and the District of Columbia asked the court to decide which authority regulates sports-event contracts on prediction markets.

The NFL’s filing and the states’ amicus brief place the league’s request within a broader legal dispute over the boundary between federal commodities oversight and state gambling regulation. New Jersey sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist notice, after which Kalshi sued the state. The company is seeking a judgment that New Jersey lacks legal authority to order the contracts removed.

Kalshi argues that its contracts come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC. The Washington Examiner’s account describes the dispute as involving the state’s effort to remove Kalshi’s contracts and the company’s challenge to that authority.

The 39-state coalition, joined by the District of Columbia, asked the Supreme Court to resolve whether states or the CFTC should regulate sports betting offered through prediction markets. Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson led the coalition, which filed an amicus brief on October 7, 2026, in New Jersey’s case against Kalshi.

The coalition’s stated legal question is whether sports-event contracts count as swaps, a type of financial contract under CFTC control, or gambling that states may regulate. Wilson argued that states have traditionally held authority over sports gambling. He also said the principle of federalism means states should retain the ability to protect their residents.

Those statements represent the coalition’s position; the account does not report a Supreme Court ruling on the dispute. The league’s position carries a documented financial context: the NFL receives about $200 million annually from gambling partners, including DraftKings, FanDuel, and Fanatics Sportsbook, according to the Washington Examiner.

The same outlet reports that states collected $3.7 billion in taxes from state-approved gambling apps in 2025. Those figures describe established commercial and state revenue streams, but they do not establish the NFL’s or states’ reasons for taking their positions on Kalshi.

The Washington Examiner also says the NFL’s filing warned that delay would increase consumer harm and risk to game integrity. The outlet places that claim alongside the league’s gambling partnerships and reports that those partners spend $120 million on advertising during football games. The warning is the NFL’s argument as reported by the outlet, not a court finding.

The coalition’s filing, meanwhile, presents state authority and resident protection as its grounds for asking the court to act. The immediate legal question remains whether the Supreme Court will take up the request to bar Kalshi’s NFL game contracts and how it will address the competing claims about state and federal jurisdiction.

The reported filings establish that the NFL wants the contracts barred and that the coalition seeks a ruling on regulatory authority; they do not establish the court’s eventual decision.