NFL backs New Jersey in Supreme Court fight over Kalshi and prediction markets

The National Football League has sided with New Jersey officials in their petition asking the US Supreme Court to take up a case over sports bets routed through prediction markets. For high-risk operators, the real issue is familiar: who gets to regulate these contracts, the states or the CFTC, and what happens when the answer is not the one your compliance team was hoping for.

1. In an amicus brief filed with the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, the NFL asked the justices to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari from New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and gaming enforcement interim director Mary Jo Flaherty. The filing supports New Jersey’s bid to get the Court to review its case against Kalshi, which could settle whether prediction market companies fall under state authority or federal agencies.
2. The league backed New Jersey’s argument that sporting-event contracts on prediction market platforms should not be casually relabeled as “swaps.” It also said the case should be reviewed to “preserve game integrity” and “protect customers.” The NFL pointed to data showing that on the first Sunday of the football season, “more than half of all prediction-markets’ trading volume,” about $1.8 billion of $3.3 billion, was tied to the NFL.
3. According to the NFL, many sporting event contracts on Kalshi and other platforms were “highly susceptible to manipulation” or “otherwise inherently objectionable.” The brief said these bets pose the greatest threats to game integrity because they can be manipulated by a single person in advance: a player can alter performance, a coach can change the lineup, or an official can make, or not make, certain calls.
4. The NFL also argued that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has not put in place what it called “sensible safeguards” for event contracts. In the league’s view, federalizing sports betting regulation instead of leaving it to individual US state authorities is a “major question” the Supreme Court should address.
5. As of Thursday, the Supreme Court had not said whether it would take the case. Kalshi was given an extension to respond to the New Jersey filing, with a deadline of Nov. 9 to address jurisdiction, manipulable event contracts, and consumer protection. Separately, 39 US states and the District of Columbia filed their own amicus brief on Wednesday backing New Jersey and calling the conflict between the CFTC and state authorities a “national turf war.”

The high-risk angle is not subtle here: if the Court lets prediction markets sit under a federal framework for sports-event contracts, state-by-state sportsbook enforcement gets harder to map. If it does not, companies offering event contracts will have one more reminder that product labels do not always control the regulatory outcome.