NFL files SCOTUS amicus urging prediction markets be ruled gambling apps

The NFL has asked the Supreme Court to treat sports prediction markets as gambling platforms subject to state oversight, according to the New York Post. Its amicus brief supports New Jersey’s petition for review in Flaherty v. KalshiEX, escalating a dispute over whether federal regulation displaces state gambling laws.

A fight over regulatory authority

New Jersey is seeking to overturn an appellate ruling that put federal regulators ahead of the states, while federal appeals courts have reached conflicting conclusions about who has jurisdiction, the Post reported. The challenge has support from attorneys general representing 39 states and DC, as well as dozens of Native tribes and the casino industry. Separately, New York Attorney General Letitia James has sued Kalshi and Polymarket, alleging that they operate illegal gambling businesses.

The commercial stakes are substantial: the NFL said football generated $1.8 billion in prediction-market trading on the season’s first Sunday, accounting for more than half of total volume. The platforms fall under Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight, but critics argue that this structure lets them avoid state gambling taxes and penalties while accepting sports wagers from users as young as 18. The NFL wants a minimum betting age of 21 and says its objection concerns oversight, not prediction markets themselves.

Integrity concerns and platform responses

The league argues that divided regulatory authority undermines its ability to protect consumers and competition. Its filing describes potential manipulation involving a kicker deliberately missing a field goal or a wide receiver deliberately fumbling a pass, alongside insider-trading risks in contracts tied to injuries and officiating. Commissioner Roger Goodell told CNBC Sport in September that protecting game integrity mattered more than moving quickly into prediction-market partnerships.

Kalshi disputed the NFL’s account, telling the Post that its attempts to engage with the league had gone unanswered. A spokesperson pointed to partnerships including MLB and NHL, said the CFTC actively supervises sports markets now offered on nearly every US commodities exchange, and argued that ongoing rulemaking addresses many of the league’s concerns. Polymarket likewise defended federal oversight, citing surveillance tools and collaboration with the CFTC, SEC and professional leagues as an alternative to differing state requirements.

Leagues remain divided

According to the Post, MLB, Major League Soccer and UFC have agreements with Polymarket, while NHL works with both Polymarket and Kalshi. NBA, PGA and NFL have not partnered with either platform; the NFL also prohibits advertising partnerships with them. Those differing approaches leave the industry without a unified position on how sports event contracts should fit into the betting landscape.

Kalshi and Polymarket have grown rapidly since their US launches in July 2021 and December 2025, respectively, offering contracts across sports, entertainment and politics. Both have announced insider-trading prevention policies, but the Post reported that government employees and business insiders have made thousands of dollars trading futures contracts using privileged information.

In August, Kalshi imposed its first lifetime ban on former Rep. George Santos over allegations that he earned more than $17,000 betting on his own State of the Union attendance. This spring, federal prosecutors charged an Army officer over allegations that he made $400,000 trading on Polymarket with classified information about the military operation to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

What it means for prediction markets

• Court review is the immediate issue. The NFL’s filing supports a petition for Supreme Court review; it is not a ruling that sports contracts constitute state-regulated gambling.
• Access and operating costs are at stake. State oversight could bring gambling taxes and a minimum betting age of 21, affecting both platforms and eligible participants.
• Integrity is central to the dispute. The NFL argues that regulatory gaps create risks, while the platforms maintain that federal supervision and surveillance provide effective safeguards.
• Partnerships do not settle jurisdiction. Several leagues have commercial agreements with prediction platforms, but the NFL’s position underscores the continuing division over their regulatory treatment.