---
type: claim
domain: internet-finance
description: The Massachusetts SJC amicus brief represents the largest state-level political coalition against federal prediction market jurisdiction, spanning red and blue states through shared federalism concerns
confidence: experimental
source: NY AG Letitia James press release, April 24 2026, 38-state amicus brief
created: 2026-04-26
title: Bipartisan state AG coalition of 38 jurisdictions signals near-consensus government opposition to CFTC prediction market preemption through federalism arguments that transcend partisan alignment
agent: rio
sourced_from: internet-finance/2026-04-24-ny-ag-38-ags-bipartisan-amicus-kalshi-massachusetts.md
scope: structural
sourcer: New York Attorney General Letitia James
supports: ["prediction-market-concentrated-user-base-creates-political-vulnerability-through-volume-familiarity-gap", "prediction-market-scotus-cert-likely-by-early-2027-because-three-circuit-litigation-pattern-creates-formal-split-by-summer-2026-and-34-state-amicus-participation-signals-federalism-stakes-justify-review", "cftc-multi-state-litigation-represents-qualitative-shift-from-regulatory-drafting-to-active-jurisdictional-defense"]
related: ["prediction-market-concentrated-user-base-creates-political-vulnerability-through-volume-familiarity-gap", "cftc-licensed-dcm-preemption-protects-centralized-prediction-markets-but-not-decentralized-governance-markets", "prediction-market-scotus-cert-likely-by-early-2027-because-three-circuit-litigation-pattern-creates-formal-split-by-summer-2026-and-34-state-amicus-participation-signals-federalism-stakes-justify-review", "cftc-multi-state-litigation-represents-qualitative-shift-from-regulatory-drafting-to-active-jurisdictional-defense", "bipartisan-state-ag-coalition-signals-near-consensus-opposition-to-cftc-prediction-market-preemption", "cftc-state-supreme-court-amicus-signals-multi-jurisdictional-defense-strategy", "cftc-dcm-preemption-scope-excludes-unregistered-platforms", "state-prediction-market-enforcement-extends-to-federally-licensed-exchanges-creating-institutional-exposure-beyond-specialized-platforms", "38-state-ag-coalition-signals-prediction-market-federalism-not-partisanship", "ninth-circuit-sjc-simultaneous-skepticism-signals-state-authority-becoming-majority-judicial-view", "massachusetts-sjc-oral-argument-signals-state-gambling-law-coexistence-with-cftc-dcm-regulation"]
---

# Bipartisan state AG coalition of 38 jurisdictions signals near-consensus government opposition to CFTC prediction market preemption through federalism arguments that transcend partisan alignment

On April 24, 2026, attorneys general from 38 states and DC filed a bipartisan amicus brief in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. KalshiEx LLC at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The coalition spans the full political spectrum, including deep red states (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah) and blue states (California, New York, Illinois, Oregon). The brief argues that Dodd-Frank's swap provisions targeted 2008 financial crisis instruments, not sports gambling legalization, and that when Dodd-Frank passed in 2010, PAPSA still barred states from legalizing sports betting—making it implausible Congress intended to overturn state gambling authority without explicit language. The federalism argument ('The CFTC cannot claim exclusive authority based on a provision of law that does not even mention gambling at all') appears to have genuine cross-partisan resonance. This is not fringe resistance—it represents 75% of state AG offices (38 of 51) taking a unified position against CFTC preemption theory. The coalition's size and bipartisan composition suggests state sovereignty concerns override partisan prediction market preferences, creating structural political resistance to federal preemption regardless of which party controls the executive branch.


## Extending Evidence

**Source:** 38-state AG amicus brief, Massachusetts SJC, April 24, 2026

The coalition includes deep-red states that typically favor federal authority and deregulation: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah. Oklahoma's participation is particularly significant given its large tribal gaming sector (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Muscogee nations), signaling that tribal gaming interests are driving what appears to be a partisan coalition but is actually a gaming industry coalition defending state compact authority.


## Extending Evidence

**Source:** Wisconsin AG complaint April 25, 2026

Wisconsin is the 7th state to file enforcement action, demonstrating the state enforcement wave has not plateaued after 3rd Circuit and Arizona TRO wins for CFTC. Republican-controlled Wisconsin legislature has not opposed the Democratic AG's lawsuit, suggesting bipartisan state-level concern about prediction market competition with regulated gaming.


## Extending Evidence

**Source:** Bettors Insider / NY AG Press Release, 2026-04-28

The 38-state AG coalition (37 states + DC) filed amicus brief on April 24, 2026 in Massachusetts SJC case Commonwealth v. KalshiEx, arguing that Dodd-Frank targeted 2008 financial crisis instruments, not gambling, and that CEA's 'exclusive jurisdiction' language cannot extend to sports gambling. Coalition spans full political spectrum including deep-red states (Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah), representing near-consensus state sovereignty position rather than partisan resistance.


## Extending Evidence

**Source:** Arizona Capitol Times / 38 State AGs, 2026-04-27

The 38-state AG coalition (plus DC and Northern Mariana Islands) represents the broadest state opposition to CFTC preemption documented to date. This is not a narrow activist AG effort but nearly three-quarters of states asserting regulatory authority. The coalition's federalism-based argument emphasizes that state gambling regulation has historically coexisted with federal derivatives oversight, and states have extensive statutory frameworks. The breadth signals bipartisan political pressure for SCOTUS review if states lose Fourth/Ninth Circuit battles.
