A federal appeals court in Philadelphia handed a significant victory to Kalshi Monday, ruling that New Jersey has no claim to regulate the prediction market under existing state gambling laws.
The appeals court affirmed a preliminary injunction granted last spring against New Jersey, after gambling regulators in the state sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist order. The state regulators had argued Kalshi’s sports-related markets were unregistered sports bets by another name; Kalshi argued they were event contracts exclusively regulated by the CFTC.
Last April, a federal judge in New Jersey sided with Kalshi, ruling New Jersey could not enforce a ban on the platform as the case proceeded to trial—becuase Kalshi was likely to succeed on the merits of its case.
Today, two appellate judges came to the same conclusion, affirming the judge’s original ruling. They are Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares, who was appointed to the Third Circuit Appeals Court by former President George W. Bush, and Judge David J. Porter, who was appointed by President Donald Trump.
The sole dissenting judge in today’s ruling, Jane R. Roth, lambasted her colleagues’ decision, arguing that although Kalshi’s sports-related wagers are registered as event contracts, that one factor does not change their inherent nature as bets on the outcomes of sports games.
“The Majority [holds] that Kalshi’s registration as a DCM and branding of its wagers as sports-event contracts are acts of alchemy that transmute its products from sports gambling to futures trading,” Roth dissented. “I see Kalshi’s actions as a performative sleight meant to obscure the reality that Kalshi’s products are sports gambling.”
Roth was appointed to the court in 1991 by former President George H.W. Bush.
Kalshi did not immediately respond to Decrypt’s request for comment on today’s ruling.
As a U.S. Appeals Court decision, today’s ruling can only be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court—unless the 3rd Circuit opts for a rare en banc review, in which every judge on the circuit would collectively rehear the case.
Due to the extent of the disagreement, the matter of prediction market regulation is likely to ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
