---
type: source
title: "Prediction market jurisdiction crisis: Tennessee sides with Kalshi, circuit split emerges, Supreme Court likely"
author: "Holland & Knight, Epstein Becker Green, Sidley Austin"
url: https://www.commerciallitigationupdate.com/prediction-markets-v-state-gaming-laws-the-kalshi-litigation-gamble
date: 2026-02-00
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: unprocessed
priority: high
tags: [prediction-markets, regulation, kalshi, jurisdiction, supreme-court, cftc, state-gaming]
---

## Content

**Key Court Rulings (as of Feb 2026):**

| Court | Outcome | Reasoning |
|-------|---------|-----------|
| Tennessee federal | Pro-Kalshi (Feb 19) | Sports contracts are "swaps" under CEA exclusive jurisdiction. Conflict preemption applies. |
| Nevada state | Pro-state | CFTC compliance doesn't preempt state gaming laws. Rejected federal court removal. |
| Massachusetts state | Pro-state (Jan 2026) | Sports contracts subject to state gaming laws. Preliminary injunction issued. |
| Maryland federal | Pro-state | CEA preemption doesn't encompass state gambling/wagering laws |
| Nevada federal | Sent back to state court | Company not "acting under" CFTC by operating exchange |

**The Preemption Question:**
- Tennessee: Conflict preemption — simultaneous compliance impossible. Federal impartial-access requirements vs state-specific restrictions.
- Nevada/Massachusetts: CEA field preemption doesn't extend to state gambling enforcement.
- Tennessee: CEA definition deliberately broad — "a three-hour-long game, and the Titans' winning that game, are both occurrences of events"
- 36 states: Filed amicus briefs opposing federal preemption in Fourth Circuit

**CFTC Imminent Rulemaking:**
- Sidley Austin (Feb 2026): CFTC signals imminent rulemaking on prediction markets
- Would create clearer federal framework potentially strengthening preemption argument
- Chairman Selig's WSJ op-ed signals aggressive pro-jurisdiction stance

**Supreme Court Path:**
- Holland & Knight explicitly states SCOTUS review "may be necessary"
- Circuit splits now emerging across jurisdictions
- Scale and complexity of litigation makes resolution through lower courts unlikely

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** The circuit split is the clearest signal this reaches SCOTUS. The outcome will determine whether prediction markets (and by extension futarchy governance markets) operate under a single federal framework or 50-state patchwork.
**What surprised me:** The Tennessee ruling's broad interpretation — even a 3-hour football game qualifies as an "event" under CEA. This expansive reading, if upheld, would clearly encompass futarchy governance proposals.
**What I expected but didn't find:** Analysis of how this specifically applies to non-sports prediction markets like futarchy governance markets. All litigation focuses on sports contracts. Governance markets may not trigger state gaming commission attention in the same way.
**KB connections:** [[Optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles]] — regulatory classification may end up being the binding constraint on mechanism choice, not manipulation risk.
**Extraction hints:** Claim about circuit split and Supreme Court path. Distinction between sports and governance prediction markets.
**Context:** Multiple law firms (Holland & Knight, Epstein Becker Green, Sidley Austin, Stinson) published analysis in Feb 2026 — this is generating significant legal attention.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[Polymarket vindicated prediction markets over polling in 2024 US election]]
WHY ARCHIVED: Circuit split virtually guarantees SCOTUS involvement. The outcome determines futarchy's regulatory viability. Multiple independent legal analyses converge on this assessment.
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on circuit split as signal for SCOTUS, and the gap between sports prediction market litigation and governance prediction market implications.
