---
type: source
title: "Fourth Circuit Maryland Oral Argument — May 7 2026 (Kalshi's 'Quacks Like a Duck' Problem)"
author: "Geoff Zochodne / Covers.com"
url: https://www.covers.com/industry/maryland-appeals-court-hearing-kalshi-duck-quack-sports-betting-argue-may-2026
date: 2026-05-07
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: processed
processed_by: rio
processed_date: 2026-05-08
priority: high
tags: [fourth-circuit, Maryland, kalshi, prediction-markets, oral-argument, circuit-split, regulatory]
intake_tier: research-task
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

Covers.com published a May 7, 2026 preview article about the Fourth Circuit oral argument in KalshiEX LLC v. Martin, No. 25-1892.

**Framing:** "Can Kalshi Quash its 'Quacks Like a Duck' Sports Betting Problem?" — indicating the core issue is whether sports event contracts are substantively identical to betting despite the CFTC registration.

**Argument details:**
- Kalshi counsel: William E. Havemann (14 min + 6 min rebuttal) [NOTE: Session 38 identified Neal Katyal as counsel — possible Katyal is lead counsel; Havemann is arguing counsel]
- Maryland counsel: Max F. Brauer (20 min)
- Time: 9:30 a.m.

**District court background:** Federal Judge Adam B. Abelson denied Kalshi's preliminary injunction (August 1, 2025). Maryland Gaming Commission challenged Kalshi. Court found state gaming authority can coexist with CFTC regulation.

**Expected outcome:** Pre-argument analysis predicted Fourth Circuit will follow district court precedent → rule pro-state (anti-Kalshi). If so: 2-1 circuit split with Third Circuit (pro-Kalshi) → SCOTUS cert near-certain.

**Actual argument content:** Article metadata retrieved but substantive content inaccessible in current fetch. Full argument analysis pending post-argument reaction.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** This is the oral argument that happened TODAY (May 7, 2026). Post-argument analysis will be the highest-priority search target for the next session. The Covers framing of the "quacks like a duck" problem tells us what the central judicial concern was: whether sports event contracts are functionally identical to betting regardless of their derivative classification.

**What surprised me:** Article was published on the day of the argument — suggesting Covers was live-covering or had early access. The "quacks like a duck" framing is important: it means the panel may be approaching the case with functional analysis (does it work like betting?) rather than formal/structural analysis (is it properly classified as a swap?). A functional-analysis court would be MORE hostile to MetaDAO's structural/endogeneity defense than a formal-analysis court.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Post-argument judicial quotes. Article content was inaccessible. Retry next session.

**KB connections:**
- Finance Magnates "functional vs. structural" dimension flagged in Session 37 — the Fourth Circuit's apparent functional analysis approach reinforces that courts using functional analysis are less susceptible to structural endogeneity arguments
- [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside the CFTC event contract definition because TWAP settlement against internal token price is endogenous rather than an external observable event]] — if Fourth Circuit uses functional analysis, the structural TWAP endogeneity defense needs supplementing with a functional argument: MetaDAO governance markets do NOT function like betting (no sports contest, no chance element, no external event to bet on)

**Extraction hints:**
1. This source is incomplete — full article content needed. Archive as placeholder.
2. Retry next session for post-argument coverage. Search: "KalshiEX Fourth Circuit Maryland ruling reaction" + "Havemann Brauer prediction markets Fourth Circuit"
3. The functional vs. structural analysis distinction is the key extraction target from this source once full content is available.

**Context:** The "quacks like a duck" formulation is a well-known judicial test: if it looks like gambling, acts like gambling, and pays out like gambling, it's gambling regardless of how it's classified. A court applying this test would need to determine whether MetaDAO governance markets also "quack like" betting — and the answer would hinge on whether a governance decision market is structurally distinguishable from a bet on an event.

## Curator Notes

PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside the CFTC event contract definition because TWAP settlement against internal token price is endogenous rather than an external observable event]]
WHY ARCHIVED: Placeholder for Fourth Circuit oral argument; full article content needed from next session; functional vs. structural analysis distinction is the key extraction target
EXTRACTION HINT: Wait for post-argument coverage — do not extract from this incomplete source; flag for retry next session
