International Gambling Regulators Ask SCOTUS to Take the Prediction Market Case
Two associations representing gambling regulators — the International Association of Gaming Regulators (IAGR) and the North American Gaming Regulators Association (NAGRA) — filed with the Supreme Court on October 3 in support of New Jersey's certiorari petition, urging the Court to take up the prediction market preemption question. The filing adds institutional weight from the gambling regulatory community to the growing list of parties asking SCOTUS to resolve the circuit split. New Jersey, Robinhood, and Crypto.com have all filed cert petitions; 20-plus states and now the gambling regulator associations are backing review.
The International Association of Gaming Regulators (IAGR) and the North American Gaming Regulators Association (NAGRA) filed with the Supreme Court on October 3, 2026 in support of New Jersey's petition for certiorari, urging the Court to take up the question of whether state gambling laws can be applied to prediction market sports event contracts. The two associations represent gambling regulatory bodies across North America and internationally; their filing adds the institutional voice of the professional gambling-regulation community to the chorus of parties asking the Supreme Court to resolve the circuit split. The filing supports New Jersey's September 2 cert petition, which seeks to overturn the Third Circuit ruling that sided with Kalshi and the CFTC on federal preemption. The gambling regulators' core interest is jurisdictional: if CFTC registration allows any operator to offer sports betting products nationwide without state gambling licenses, the entire state-based gambling regulatory framework that these associations' members administer is undermined.
The IAGR and NAGRA filing is part of a broadening coalition pressing for SCOTUS review. New Jersey filed its cert petition on September 2 (from the Third Circuit loss); Robinhood filed September 9 and Crypto.com also filed from the Ninth Circuit ruling; more than 20 states filed amicus briefs supporting state regulatory authority at various stages of the litigation; gaming-state lawmakers have publicly urged the Court to take the case; and now the gambling regulator associations have added their support. The breadth of the coalition supporting review is itself an argument for cert: the Supreme Court is more likely to take a case when a wide range of institutional stakeholders — states, regulators, legislators — signal that the question has broad national importance and that lower-court disorder is causing real governance problems. The one notable absence from the pro-review coalition is any party arguing against SCOTUS taking the case; even Kalshi, which won in the Third Circuit, has an interest in a definitive national ruling given that it has now lost in the Ninth and Sixth Circuits.
The gambling regulators' involvement highlights the institutional stakes that extend beyond the individual platforms. State gambling regulators administer licensing regimes that generate significant tax revenue, enforce responsible-gambling requirements, conduct operator background checks, and police problem gambling. The prediction market platforms' position — that CFTC registration exempts them from all of this — represents an existential challenge to the state gambling regulatory model if it prevails nationally. IAGR's international membership adds a global dimension: gambling regulators in Europe, where the Czech Republic, Belgium, France, Romania, Spain, and Germany have all moved against the platforms, share the concern that a US federal-preemption victory for the platforms could become a model that prediction market operators cite in arguing for regulatory exemptions in other jurisdictions. The gambling regulator community has a coordinated interest in the Supreme Court affirming that gambling-like products are subject to gambling regulation regardless of how they are packaged.
The procedural posture remains unchanged by the filing: the Supreme Court has not yet acted on any of the cert petitions, and Kalshi's response briefs are still pending. The gambling regulators' filing, like the states' amicus briefs, is a signal to the Court rather than a trigger for action — the Court will conference the petitions once all responses are in, likely in late October or November. But the accumulation of supporting filings from states, legislators, and now gambling regulators strengthens the case that this is a question of exceptional national importance warranting the Court's attention. If the Court grants cert, the gambling regulators' arguments — about the practical consequences for state licensing regimes and consumer protection — would likely feature in the merits briefing as the concrete real-world stakes of the abstract preemption question. The prediction market cases are evolving from a dispute between platforms and states into a broader institutional confrontation between the federal commodity-regulation framework and the entire apparatus of gambling regulation.
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.