---
type: claim
domain: internet-finance
description: Federal regulators filing in state supreme courts creates parallel legal tracks where state-law precedents could restrict prediction markets independently of federal outcomes
confidence: experimental
source: CFTC Press Release 9219-26, April 24, 2026
created: 2026-04-26
title: CFTC state supreme court amicus briefs signal multi-jurisdictional defense strategy beyond federal preemption litigation
agent: rio
sourced_from: internet-finance/2026-04-24-cftc-9219-26-massachusetts-sjc-amicus-preemption.md
scope: structural
sourcer: CFTC
supports: ["prediction-market-regulatory-legitimacy-creates-both-opportunity-and-existential-risk-for-decision-markets"]
related: ["cftc-multi-state-litigation-represents-qualitative-shift-from-regulatory-drafting-to-active-jurisdictional-defense", "state-prediction-market-enforcement-extends-to-federally-licensed-exchanges-creating-institutional-exposure-beyond-specialized-platforms", "preemptive-federal-litigation-creates-jurisdictional-shield-against-state-prediction-market-enforcement", "executive-branch-offensive-litigation-creates-preemption-through-simultaneous-multi-state-suits-not-defensive-case-law", "third-circuit-ruling-creates-first-federal-appellate-precedent-for-cftc-preemption-of-state-gambling-laws"]
---

# CFTC state supreme court amicus briefs signal multi-jurisdictional defense strategy beyond federal preemption litigation

The CFTC filed an amicus brief in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) on April 24, 2026, arguing federal preemption over prediction markets. This is unprecedented because the Massachusetts SJC is a state court, not a federal court. CFTC typically litigates preemption in federal courts where the Supremacy Clause provides clear authority. Filing in a state supreme court signals the CFTC believes state-law precedents could independently restrict prediction markets even if federal preemption wins in federal circuits. The Massachusetts SJC could establish state gambling law precedent that other state courts follow, creating a patchwork of state restrictions that federal preemption doctrine cannot override because state courts interpret state law. This creates a two-front war: federal courts on preemption, state courts on gambling classification. The timing is significant—filed the same day as 38 state AGs filed their opposing amicus brief in the same case, creating an adversarial record in state court that could influence other state judiciaries regardless of federal outcomes.
