NFL backs Supreme Court review of sports prediction market oversight

The NFL submitted a brief to the US Supreme Court on October 8 backing New Jersey gaming officials’ request for review of a dispute with prediction market operator Kalshi. The case could clarify whether states may apply their gambling laws to sports event contracts, an issue affecting how those markets are overseen across the United States. The justices have not decided whether to hear the case.

Why the NFL wants Supreme Court review

The league argues that sports-related prediction contracts should be subject to state gambling regulation rather than placed exclusively under the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It says uncertainty over which regulator has authority creates risks for consumers and the integrity of sports events. Those are arguments made in the league’s filing, not findings by the Supreme Court.

The NFL has called for a minimum trading age of 21 and restrictions on markets it considers vulnerable to manipulation. Its concerns include contracts linked to individual plays, player injuries, officiating decisions and missed field goals. The league argues that the safeguards applied to sports wagering should inform oversight of contracts tied to sporting events.

To describe the scale of activity, the NFL’s brief says that $1.8 billion of $3.3 billion in prediction market trading volume on the first Sunday of the current NFL season was connected to the league. That is the NFL’s cited figure; the reporting does not independently verify the measurement. Nor does the figure establish that manipulation occurred.

How Kalshi and federal regulators respond

A Polymarket spokesperson said the company shares the NFL’s commitment to game integrity but favors a harmonized federal framework over differing state laws. The choice between federal and state authority matters to operators offering contracts across state lines, while states are seeking the ability to apply their own gambling rules to those contracts.

The CFTC said it had engaged with the NFL over policy and rulemaking. A commission spokesperson said the league declined to sign a memorandum of understanding that could have helped the two sides cooperate and share information. The agency’s response addresses the NFL’s concerns about oversight; it does not settle the question of which laws govern the contracts.

What the court dispute covers

New Jersey’s petition asks the Supreme Court to review its case against KalshiEX. The docket identifies an April 6, 2026 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit as the ruling below. New Jersey filed its petition on September 2, and the NFL entered the case as a supporting party through an amicus brief rather than as a litigant seeking its own ruling.

The appeals courts have taken different approaches. According to the Associated Press, the Third Circuit ruled for Kalshi earlier in 2026, while the Sixth and Ninth Circuits ruled for states seeking regulatory authority. The NFL says it favors the approach taken by the Sixth and Ninth Circuits. AP reports that roughly 20 states are involved in prediction market litigation, showing that the dispute reaches beyond New Jersey.

The Supreme Court docket also lists briefs from other parties seeking to be heard, including one submitted by Ohio, 38 other states and the District of Columbia on October 7, and one from 145 tribes and tribal organizations on October 8. Their participation shows the breadth of interest in the case, although filing a brief does not mean the court will take it up or adopt its arguments.

What happens next in New Jersey’s case

Kalshi’s deadline to respond to New Jersey’s petition has been extended to November 9, according to the Supreme Court docket. The court must first decide whether to grant review before it can resolve the underlying dispute. Until then, neither the NFL’s filing nor the competing responses amount to a nationwide ruling on sports prediction contracts.