Conflicting circuit rulings put Kalshi sports contracts at legal crossroads

Federal appeals courts have reached opposing conclusions about the legal status of Kalshi sports event contracts, according to a prediction markets overview from Foley and Lardner. The disagreement centers on whether those contracts qualify as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Courts diverge on contract classification

The Third Circuit held that Kalshi sports event contracts likely qualify as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, according to Foley and Lardner. That qualification matters: the overview describes a finding of likely status, rather than an unqualified determination.

The Ninth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, the firm says. The contrasting decisions leave a central classification question contested across the two circuits as prediction-market litigation moves toward the Supreme Court.

Tracking the litigation

Foley and Lardner has built a litigation tracker covering federal and state cases in the dispute. Its overview places the conflicting appellate conclusions within that broader set of proceedings.

For prediction-market readers, the distinction between the cases remains important. The supplied summary identifies opposing circuit conclusions but does not provide the reasoning behind either decision or a timetable for Supreme Court consideration.

What it means for prediction markets

• Contract classification is the key issue: The identified split concerns whether Kalshi sports event contracts qualify as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act.
• The rulings should not be treated as interchangeable: The Third Circuit’s likely-swaps finding contrasts with the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion.
• Procedural details remain limited: The summary provides no Supreme Court hearing date or information establishing whether the Court has agreed to review the dispute.