- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 89,733
SOURCE/Full Story
The National Football League and attorneys general from 39 states and the District of Columbia filed amicus briefs
this week urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear New Jersey‘s case against Kalshi.
The NFL filed its brief on Thursday. The states’ brief, led by Ohio, came Wednesday.
Both argue that federal commodities law does not override state Sports Betting laws to regulate sports event contracts.
The pair of briefs follow a set filed earlier this week by the International Association of Gaming Regulators (IAGR)
and the North American Gaming Regulators Association (NAGRA).
The American Gaming Association joined 145 tribes and tribal organizations in submitting briefs in support of New Jersey this week.
Is New Jersey the Kalshi case that goes?
New Jersey filed its petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case in September.
“The NFL and attorneys general both focus heavily on the states’ rights portion,” Josh Kirschner, Holland & Knight partner and
gaming practice deputy team leader, said. “It signals both of them believe it is a winning argument at the Supreme Court.”
Kirschner also noted the timing suggests both filers believe the New Jersey case is ripe. He said the “odds now are much higher”
that the Court will pick up the Third Circuit petition and could be at oral argument “before schools let out for summer break.”
“That’s about as expedited as I could see, maybe fall term, but it’s a higher and higher likelihood of a fully briefed argument in 2027,” he said.
NFL: from PASPA opponent to states’ ally
The NFL is a notable partner for New Jersey, as the league was among the plaintiffs that fought the state for six years over
the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). That fight ended with Murphy v. NCAA in 2018, when the
Supreme Court struck down the federal ban and opened the door to legal Sports Betting. Now the NFL is asking the
Court to protect New Jersey’s authority to regulate the same activity it once tried to stop.
The NFL acknowledges the history in a footnote, noting that it “was a Plaintiff–Respondent in Murphy alongside other leagues and
the NCAA.” Since that ruling, the brief said the league’s “very top priority” has been protecting the integrity of its games.
It says it does that by working with state regulators and licensed Sportsbooks on rules that prediction markets do not follow.
Torridon Law, whose team includes former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, filed the league’s brief. It says the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and exchanges such as Kalshi have “so far resisted” its requests for safeguards.
In letters to the CFTC in May and July, the NFL asked the agency to ban four kinds of contracts:
What a single person could manipulate, such as whether a kicker misses a field goal
What the league considers inherently objectionable, such as those tied to player injuries
Anything tied to officiating, such as the number or type of penalties
Markets whose outcome is knowable in advance, such as whether the first play will be a run or a pass
Last month, the league said the CFTC ignoring the asks is “deeply concerning.” This week’s brief said the CFTC has not banned any of
those categories outright. It added that the agency’s proposed rules do not mention the “knowable in advance” category.
Brief: prediction markets have age, staffing issues
The NFL also raised age limits and staffing issues. Most states require sports bettors to be 21, but prediction markets accept 18-year-olds.
As a result, the brief said an 18-year-old in almost every state “could not bet on a game through Caesars Sportsbook, but could bet on the same game through Kalshi.”
On staffing, it noted that the CFTC has 543 employees nationwide, while Nevada and Pennsylvania gaming regulators each have close to 400.
The brief showed how much of this market depends on the NFL. On the first Sunday of the season, $1.8bn of the $3.3bn traded across
prediction markets was tied to NFL games. The league asked the Court to act “before another NFL season goes by.”
The NFL sided with the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, arguing that a “swap” under the Dodd-Frank Act covers only instruments used to hedge
existing risk, not sports wagers. The NFL told Front Office Sports it does not oppose prediction markets as a whole.
The National Football League and attorneys general from 39 states and the District of Columbia filed amicus briefs
this week urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear New Jersey‘s case against Kalshi.
The NFL filed its brief on Thursday. The states’ brief, led by Ohio, came Wednesday.
Both argue that federal commodities law does not override state Sports Betting laws to regulate sports event contracts.
The pair of briefs follow a set filed earlier this week by the International Association of Gaming Regulators (IAGR)
and the North American Gaming Regulators Association (NAGRA).
The American Gaming Association joined 145 tribes and tribal organizations in submitting briefs in support of New Jersey this week.
Is New Jersey the Kalshi case that goes?
New Jersey filed its petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case in September.
“The NFL and attorneys general both focus heavily on the states’ rights portion,” Josh Kirschner, Holland & Knight partner and
gaming practice deputy team leader, said. “It signals both of them believe it is a winning argument at the Supreme Court.”
Kirschner also noted the timing suggests both filers believe the New Jersey case is ripe. He said the “odds now are much higher”
that the Court will pick up the Third Circuit petition and could be at oral argument “before schools let out for summer break.”
“That’s about as expedited as I could see, maybe fall term, but it’s a higher and higher likelihood of a fully briefed argument in 2027,” he said.
NFL: from PASPA opponent to states’ ally
The NFL is a notable partner for New Jersey, as the league was among the plaintiffs that fought the state for six years over
the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). That fight ended with Murphy v. NCAA in 2018, when the
Supreme Court struck down the federal ban and opened the door to legal Sports Betting. Now the NFL is asking the
Court to protect New Jersey’s authority to regulate the same activity it once tried to stop.
The NFL acknowledges the history in a footnote, noting that it “was a Plaintiff–Respondent in Murphy alongside other leagues and
the NCAA.” Since that ruling, the brief said the league’s “very top priority” has been protecting the integrity of its games.
It says it does that by working with state regulators and licensed Sportsbooks on rules that prediction markets do not follow.
Torridon Law, whose team includes former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, filed the league’s brief. It says the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and exchanges such as Kalshi have “so far resisted” its requests for safeguards.
In letters to the CFTC in May and July, the NFL asked the agency to ban four kinds of contracts:
What a single person could manipulate, such as whether a kicker misses a field goal
What the league considers inherently objectionable, such as those tied to player injuries
Anything tied to officiating, such as the number or type of penalties
Markets whose outcome is knowable in advance, such as whether the first play will be a run or a pass
Last month, the league said the CFTC ignoring the asks is “deeply concerning.” This week’s brief said the CFTC has not banned any of
those categories outright. It added that the agency’s proposed rules do not mention the “knowable in advance” category.
Brief: prediction markets have age, staffing issues
The NFL also raised age limits and staffing issues. Most states require sports bettors to be 21, but prediction markets accept 18-year-olds.
As a result, the brief said an 18-year-old in almost every state “could not bet on a game through Caesars Sportsbook, but could bet on the same game through Kalshi.”
On staffing, it noted that the CFTC has 543 employees nationwide, while Nevada and Pennsylvania gaming regulators each have close to 400.
The brief showed how much of this market depends on the NFL. On the first Sunday of the season, $1.8bn of the $3.3bn traded across
prediction markets was tied to NFL games. The league asked the Court to act “before another NFL season goes by.”
The NFL sided with the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, arguing that a “swap” under the Dodd-Frank Act covers only instruments used to hedge
existing risk, not sports wagers. The NFL told Front Office Sports it does not oppose prediction markets as a whole.
