---
type: source
title: "'Basically Gambling'?: 4th Circuit Questions Kalshi's Anti-State-Regulation Claim"
author: "Law.com / National Law Journal"
url: https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2026/05/07/basically-gambling-4th-circuit-questions-kalshis-anti-state-regulation-claim/
date: 2026-05-07
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: processed
processed_by: rio
processed_date: 2026-05-09
priority: high
tags: [prediction-markets, kalshi, fourth-circuit, regulatory, preemption, field-preemption, event-contracts]
intake_tier: research-task
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

National Law Journal coverage of the Fourth Circuit oral argument (May 7, 2026). Title captures Judge Gregory's "basically gambling" characterization.

Oral arguments in federal and state courts involving Maryland and Massachusetts this week "featured heavy skepticism of Kalshi's claims about sports event contracts being out of reach of state police powers."

Three judges: Roger Gregory, DeAndrea Gist Benjamin, Stephanie Thacker.

Key judicial signals (per Law.com + corroborating sources):
- Judge Gregory's "basically gambling" characterization of sports event contracts — but also his apparent endorsement of field preemption language as intentional congressional design
- "this will probably end up with the Supreme Court" (Gregory)
- Panel pressed Maryland's counsel on whether DCMs fall outside the statutory definition of "swaps"
- Overall: argument described as "anything but a slam dunk for Kalshi" — but also not a clear pro-Maryland outcome

No governance markets, futarchy, or endogenous settlement mentioned.

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** The Law.com headline — "'Basically Gambling'?" — is the most widely syndicated framing of the Fourth Circuit argument. It's the "duck quack" framing from Judge Gregory. But the question mark in the headline signals the ambiguity. Legal publications understood the panel was not delivering a verdict at argument.

**What surprised me:** The Law.com framing is more skeptical of Kalshi than the InGame framing. Same argument, different emphasis. This suggests the argument genuinely presented dual signals.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Any panel discussion of non-sports prediction markets. The "basically gambling" framing is so sports-specific that it creates no precedent for governance markets.

**KB connections:** Same as InGame + DeFiRate archives.

**Extraction hints:** This source is better for understanding how legal practitioners are reading the panel signals. The "basically gambling?" framing is the one most likely to appear in future scholarship.

**Context:** Law.com is the most authoritative legal publication covering this argument. Their framing shapes how the legal community interprets the panel's signals before the ruling drops.

## Curator Notes
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition because TWAP settlement against internal token price is endogenous not an external observable event]]
WHY ARCHIVED: Third source on the Fourth Circuit argument — corroborates and adds the Law.com "basically gambling?" framing. Three sources together give a complete picture of the argument.
EXTRACTION HINT: Use alongside InGame and DeFiRate archives. The three-source view is: DeFiRate (skeptical of Kalshi), InGame (nuanced — wary but not convinced illegal), Law.com (basically gambling but ambiguous ruling signal).
