diff --git a/domains/internet-finance/cftc-gaming-classification-silence-signals-rule-40-11-structural-contradiction.md b/domains/internet-finance/cftc-gaming-classification-silence-signals-rule-40-11-structural-contradiction.md
index 1a64fcde2..c99e635c9 100644
--- a/domains/internet-finance/cftc-gaming-classification-silence-signals-rule-40-11-structural-contradiction.md
+++ b/domains/internet-finance/cftc-gaming-classification-silence-signals-rule-40-11-structural-contradiction.md
@@ -24,3 +24,10 @@ During several hours of testimony before the House Agriculture Committee on Apri
 **Source:** Bloomberg Law, April 17, 2026
 
 Judge Nelson's questioning at Ninth Circuit oral arguments directly targeted Rule 40.11: CFTC's own regulations prohibit DCMs from listing gaming contracts unless CFTC grants an exception. Nelson framed the dilemma: prediction markets either can't do the activity at all (gaming is prohibited on DCMs), or they're regulated by the state. The federal authorization they claim either doesn't exist or requires explicit CFTC permission not yet granted for sports event contracts. CFTC attorney Minot's response (arguing CFTC doesn't define sports contracts as 'gaming') was apparently unpersuasive to the panel.
+
+
+## Supporting Evidence
+
+**Source:** casino.org, April 20, 2026; Ninth Circuit oral arguments April 16, 2026
+
+Judge Nelson directly confronted CFTC attorney Jordan Minot on the Rule 40.11 paradox. When Minot argued the agency doesn't define sports contracts as 'involving gaming,' Nelson replied: 'You go to a casino to make sports bets.' Nevada's attorney characterized sports event contracts as functionally identical to sports books, focusing on consumer protection and tax revenue arguments. The panel's skepticism across all three judges confirms the Rule 40.11 structural contradiction is the centerpiece of the appeal.
diff --git a/domains/internet-finance/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.md b/domains/internet-finance/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.md
index 2f3b730ae..813c8af5f 100644
--- a/domains/internet-finance/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.md
+++ b/domains/internet-finance/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.md
@@ -52,3 +52,10 @@ Bloomberg Law reports April 16, 2026 Ninth Circuit oral arguments showed all thr
 **Source:** ProphetX CFTC ANPRM comments, April 2026
 
 ProphetX's Section 4(c) proposal represents a regulatory hedge against adverse SCOTUS ruling. If the Court rejects field preemption, Section 4(c) provides an alternative authorization pathway that doesn't depend on the preemption doctrine. This suggests sophisticated operators are preparing for multiple legal outcomes.
+
+
+## Supporting Evidence
+
+**Source:** casino.org, April 20, 2026; Ninth Circuit oral arguments April 16, 2026
+
+Ninth Circuit oral arguments held April 16, 2026 with ruling expected 'in the coming days' per casino.org April 20 article. Judge Nelson's exact language on Rule 40.11: '40.11 says any regulated entity shall not list for trading gaming contracts. It prohibits it from going on. The only way to get around it is if you get permission first.' Panel composition (Nelson, Bade, Lee - all Trump first-term appointees) showed marked skepticism despite being 'friendly' circuit. Multiple states (e.g., Arizona) have filed to delay their own cases pending this ruling, confirming its dispositive significance. Timeline compressed from typical 60-120 day window to imminent ruling.