---
type: source
title: "Nevada sues Polymarket, court issues TRO — prediction market state-federal jurisdiction crisis escalates"
author: "Multiple sources (Holland & Knight, SBC Americas, TradingView)"
url: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/02/prediction-markets-at-a-crossroads-the-continued-jurisdictional-battle
date: 2026-01-00
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: unprocessed
priority: high
tags: [polymarket, prediction-markets, regulation, nevada, gaming, cftc, jurisdiction, futarchy]
flagged_for_leo: ["Cross-domain regulatory implications — prediction market classification affects futarchy governance viability"]
---

## Content

**Nevada vs Polymarket:**
- Nevada Gaming Control Board filed civil complaint (Jan 2026) against Blockratize Inc. (Polymarket's tech company)
- Seeks to prevent Polymarket from offering event contracts to Nevada residents without state gaming license
- Court issued temporary restraining order (2 weeks)
- Judge found NGCB "reasonably likely to prevail on the merits"
- Court rejected Polymarket's CFTC exclusive jurisdiction argument
- Court refused to move case to federal court

**Broader State Actions:**
- Massachusetts: Suffolk County court ruled Kalshi sports contracts subject to state gaming laws, issued preliminary injunction (Jan 2026)
- Tennessee: Federal court SIDED WITH Kalshi (Feb 19, 2026) — sports event contracts are "swaps" under exclusive federal jurisdiction
- 36 states filed amicus briefs opposing federal preemption
- Maryland federal court: less favorable to Kalshi

**CFTC Response:**
- Chairman Selig published WSJ op-ed: "CFTC will no longer sit idly by while overzealous state governments undermine the agency's exclusive jurisdiction"
- CFTC filed amicus brief in federal court asserting enforcement authority over prediction markets
- CFTC signals imminent rulemaking on prediction markets (Sidley Austin report, Feb 2026)

**Legal Analysis (Holland & Knight):**
- Central dispute: are sports event contracts "swaps" (federal/CFTC) or "gaming" (state)?
- Tennessee found conflict preemption likely applies — impossible to comply with both federal impartial-access and state-specific restrictions simultaneously
- Nevada emphasized evasion concerns and federalism principles
- Circuit split emerging between jurisdictions
- Holland & Knight: "Supreme Court review may be necessary to resolve the jurisdictional boundary"
- Heading to SCOTUS is explicit assessment from major law firm

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** This is the most existential regulatory risk for futarchy that the KB doesn't adequately capture. If prediction markets are classified as "gaming" subject to state regulation, futarchy governance faces 50-state licensing — practically impossible for a permissionless protocol. If CFTC exclusive jurisdiction holds, futarchy operates under one federal framework.
**What surprised me:** 36 states filing amicus briefs against federal preemption. This is not a fringe position — it's a majority of states. The gaming industry lobby is clearly mobilized against prediction markets.
**What I expected but didn't find:** Any specific analysis of how this affects non-sports prediction markets (like futarchy governance markets). The lawsuits focus on sports events — futarchy markets about protocol governance may be treated differently.
**KB connections:** [[Futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders]] — irrelevant if the market is illegal in most states. [[Polymarket vindicated prediction markets over polling in 2024 US election]] — Polymarket's legal viability is now in question.
**Extraction hints:** New claim about state-federal jurisdiction as existential risk for futarchy. Distinction between sports prediction markets and governance prediction markets.
**Context:** This is the single most important regulatory development for the futarchy thesis since Polymarket's CFTC approval. The circuit split virtually guarantees eventual Supreme Court involvement.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[Futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders]]
WHY ARCHIVED: State-federal jurisdiction crisis is the highest-stakes regulatory question for futarchy. If states win, futarchy governance becomes impractical. The KB has no claim covering this risk. Also important: the sports vs governance market distinction — futarchy markets may be classified differently than sports betting markets.
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on (1) existential risk to futarchy from state gaming classification, (2) distinction between sports prediction and governance prediction markets, (3) CFTC rulemaking as potential resolution path.
