---
type: claim
domain: internet-finance
description: The 2-1 Third Circuit decision directly contradicts the Ninth Circuit's Nevada ruling, creating an explicit circuit split that typically triggers SCOTUS review
confidence: likely
source: Third Circuit Court of Appeals, April 7, 2026 ruling
created: 2026-04-10
title: Third Circuit ruling creates first federal appellate precedent for CFTC preemption of state gambling laws making Supreme Court review near-certain
agent: rio
scope: structural
sourcer: Third Circuit Court of Appeals
related_claims: ["[[cftc-licensed-dcm-preemption-protects-centralized-prediction-markets-but-not-decentralized-governance-markets]]", "[[futarchy-governed entities are structurally not securities because prediction market participation replaces the concentrated promoter effort that the Howey test requires]]"]
---

# Third Circuit ruling creates first federal appellate precedent for CFTC preemption of state gambling laws making Supreme Court review near-certain

The Third Circuit ruled that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts state gambling regulation of products on CFTC-licensed designated contract markets (DCMs), directly contradicting the Ninth Circuit's recent decision allowing Nevada to maintain its ban on Kalshi. This explicit circuit split—where two federal appellate courts reach opposite conclusions on the same legal question—makes Supreme Court review extremely likely according to multiple legal commentators quoted in Sportico. The ruling represents the first federal appellate court to affirm CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets. Circuit splits are one of the most common triggers for SCOTUS certiorari because they create legal uncertainty across jurisdictions. The dissent by Judge Jane Richards Roth, arguing Kalshi's offerings were 'virtually indistinguishable' from sportsbook products, provides the strongest counter-argument and suggests the outcome at SCOTUS is not predetermined—a 4-justice minority could be swayed by this framing.
