# Massachusetts SJC Kalshi Preemption Case

**Case:** Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. KalshiEx LLC, No. SJC-13906
**Court:** Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
**Status:** Fully briefed, pending decision (as of April 28, 2026)
**Significance:** First state supreme court case testing CFTC preemption of state gambling laws for prediction markets

## Overview

The Massachusetts SJC case represents the first instance of a state's highest court deciding whether federal CFTC authority preempts state gambling enforcement against prediction market platforms. Unlike federal district court cases where CFTC files offensive litigation, this case has CFTC asking a state supreme court to invalidate the state's own AG enforcement.

## Timeline

- **September 2025** — Massachusetts AG sued Kalshi, becoming first state to sue a prediction market platform
- **January 21, 2026** — Suffolk County Superior Court granted preliminary injunction blocking Kalshi from offering sports event contracts without state license
- **February 9, 2026** — Geofencing ruling confirmed
- **April 24, 2026** — CFTC filed amicus brief asserting federal preemption; simultaneously, 38 state AGs + DC filed competing amicus brief opposing CFTC preemption
- **April 28, 2026** — Case fully briefed, pending decision

## Legal Arguments

### 38 State AGs Position
- Dodd-Frank targeted 2008 crisis financial instruments, not gambling
- CEA's "exclusive jurisdiction" language cannot extend to sports gambling based on statutory provision that doesn't mention gambling
- States retain sovereign authority over gambling regulation

### CFTC Position
- Congress created CFTC framework to prevent state-by-state regulatory patchwork
- Allowing state gambling laws to override federal derivatives oversight would "reintroduce fragmented oversight across jurisdictions"
- CEA's swap definition is broad enough to cover prediction market event contracts

## Coalition Composition

37 states + Washington DC, spanning full political spectrum including deep-red states (Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah). Represents near-consensus state government opposition, not partisan resistance.

## Structural Significance

The SJC is a state supreme court deciding whether its own AG's enforcement is preempted. This creates different institutional dynamics than federal district courts—the court must decide whether to find its own state's power preempted, creating natural alignment with state sovereignty position.

## Expected Timeline

Massachusetts SJC cases with competing amicus coalitions do not have predictable timelines. Some observers estimate resolution not until 2028, with eventual SCOTUS review likely.

## Related Cases

- [[kalshi]] — Defendant platform
- [[cftc]] — Federal amicus
- [[new-york-ag-prediction-market-enforcement]] — Parallel state enforcement
- [[wisconsin-ag-prediction-market-enforcement]] — Parallel state enforcement