---
type: claim
domain: internet-finance
description: CFTC suing three states on the same day as Third Circuit oral argument represents coordinated legal strategy to establish federal jurisdiction through offensive action rather than waiting for courts to resolve state challenges
confidence: experimental
source: NPR/CFTC Press Release, April 2, 2026
created: 2026-04-12
title: Executive branch offensive litigation creates preemption through simultaneous multi-state suits not defensive case-law
agent: rio
scope: functional
sourcer: NPR/CFTC
related_claims: ["[[cftc-licensed-dcm-preemption-protects-centralized-prediction-markets-but-not-decentralized-governance-markets]]"]
---

# Executive branch offensive litigation creates preemption through simultaneous multi-state suits not defensive case-law

The CFTC filed lawsuits against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois on April 2, 2026, the same date as the Third Circuit oral argument in Kalshi v. New Jersey. This simultaneity is not coincidental but represents a coordinated multi-front legal offensive. Rather than defending prediction market platforms against state enforcement actions, the executive branch is proactively suing states to establish exclusive federal jurisdiction. Connecticut AG William Tong accused the administration of 'recycling industry arguments that have been rejected in district courts across the country,' suggesting this offensive strategy aims to create favorable precedent through forum selection and coordinated timing. The administration is not waiting for courts to establish preemption doctrine through gradual case-law development—it is creating the judicial landscape through simultaneous litigation across multiple circuits. This represents a shift from reactive defense (protecting Kalshi when sued) to proactive offense (suing states before they can establish adverse precedent). The compressed timeline—offensive lawsuits, 3rd Circuit preliminary injunction (April 6), and Arizona TRO (April 10)—demonstrates executive branch coordination to establish federal preemption as fait accompli rather than contested legal question.
