Split appeals rulings put sports contract classification before Supreme Court petitioners

The legal status of sports event contracts has produced conflicting federal appeals court decisions, with multiple parties now asking the Supreme Court to resolve the disagreement.

According to Foley and Lardner’s tracking of the litigation, the Third Circuit has blocked New Jersey from enforcing its rules against Kalshi. The Ninth and Sixth Circuits have reached the opposite conclusion on whether sports event contracts qualify as swaps.

Classification dispute drives appeals

The distinction matters to the cases: the courts disagree over how sports event contracts should be classified. The Third Circuit’s decision gives Kalshi protection from New Jersey enforcement, while the conflicting conclusions leave the broader legal question unsettled.

Multiple parties have filed petitions seeking Supreme Court review of that split. Those filings are requests for the justices to take up the dispute, not a resolution of the underlying classification question.

What it means for prediction markets

• Conflicting legal treatment: The Third Circuit’s position differs from those of the Ninth and Sixth Circuits on whether sports event contracts qualify as swaps.
• A concrete enforcement outcome: New Jersey enforcement against Kalshi has been blocked by the Third Circuit; that outcome should not be read as a nationwide resolution.
• Review remains a separate question: The petitions put the disagreement before the Supreme Court, but the supplied account does not establish whether the justices will hear it.