Infiniti Intelligence Hourly Briefing — Oct 9, 2026 · 5:54 PM ET

The Kletsel Dehe and three other tribes in California and Oklahoma launched prediction apps with Kalshi on Wednesday, according to CNN reporting cited by Next Event Horizon. The partnerships widen a divide between a small, growing group of tribes entering prediction markets and hundreds of others challenging the industry’s legality.

Tribal partnerships meet resistance

For opponents, the dispute centers on gaming rights and the casino income that supports tribal communities. According to CNN, hundreds of tribes argue that Kalshi and Polymarket are unlawfully intruding on those rights and are seeking court action to prohibit sports prediction markets. Sports account for over 80% of the business, CNN reported.

The economic stakes extend beyond the apps themselves. Tribal casino gaming generated over $46 billion in revenue in 2025, according to National Indian Gaming Commission figures cited by Fortune. Fortune described the partnerships as a departure from the previously adversarial relationship between tribes and prediction platforms.

A broader fight over regulatory authority

The launches came as 39 states filed an amicus brief on Wednesday supporting New Jersey’s petition to the Supreme Court, according to Next Event Horizon. The states want the court to establish that federal law does not displace state gambling laws governing sports event contracts. The coalition includes states with legal sports betting and others that prohibit gambling entirely.

The court record is divided. The Third Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction favoring Kalshi in its dispute with New Jersey, while the operator lost similar cases in the Ninth and Sixth circuits, Next Event Horizon reported. Those conflicting outcomes leave the tribal partnerships unfolding against an unsettled legal backdrop.

Tribal regulatory concerns also feature in a separate filing from the International Association of Gaming Regulators and the North American Gaming Regulators Association, according to SBC Americas reporting cited by Next Event Horizon. Their brief notes that sports betting falls under Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and that Maine and Michigan reserve some or all of their mobile markets for tribes. It argues that selling equivalent products outside negotiated compacts undermines tribal regulators’ ability to enforce those arrangements.

What it means for prediction markets

• Tribal participation is not broad tribal acceptance. Four new partnerships expand Kalshi’s relationships, but hundreds of tribes continue to oppose sports prediction markets.
• Sports remain the central exposure. With sports representing over 80% of the business, the legal challenges target a major component of prediction-market activity.
• Court outcomes matter more than partnership announcements for legal certainty. The conflicting circuit decisions and New Jersey’s Supreme Court petition leave the boundary between federal oversight and state gambling authority unresolved.

A coalition of 39 states has asked the Supreme Court to take up New Jersey’s dispute with Kalshi, arguing that federal law should not prevent states from applying gambling restrictions to sports-event contracts. The amicus brief was filed on Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026, according to Next Event Horizon.

The coalition spans political divisions and different approaches to gambling: some participating states permit legal sports betting, while others prohibit gambling entirely. CNN’s Marshall Cohen highlighted support from states including Alabama, California, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Next Event Horizon reported that 10 states did not join, with Texas and Florida the largest among those absent.

Conflicting rulings put federal authority in focus

The Third Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction favoring Kalshi in its dispute with New Jersey. But Kalshi has lost similar cases in the Ninth and Sixth circuits, according to Next Event Horizon. Other circuits could also weigh in on whether federal law permits sports-event contracts, leaving the industry facing divergent judicial outcomes.

The states challenge the argument that these contracts are swaps subject exclusively to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s authority. Their brief contends that the Commodity Exchange Act does not clearly displace state gambling powers. They also invoke state sovereignty, consumer protections and the major questions doctrine in asking the Supreme Court to resolve the disagreement.

Regulators and tribal interests add pressure

The International Association of Gaming Regulators and the North American Gaming Regulators Association also asked the Supreme Court last week to hear New Jersey’s case, according to SBC Americas, as cited by Next Event Horizon. Their filing emphasizes that sports betting falls within Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and that Maine and Michigan have reserved some or all of their mobile markets for tribes. The regulators argue that offering equivalent products outside tribal compacts undermines enforcement of those agreements. Next Event Horizon also reported that the NFL sided with New Jersey.

Tribal opposition is not universal. Four tribes in California and Oklahoma launched prediction apps with Kalshi on Wednesday, including the Kletsel Dehe, according to CNN’s reporting cited by Next Event Horizon. CNN reported that hundreds of other tribes oppose the platforms over alleged encroachment on their gaming rights, with sports prediction markets accounting for over 80% of the business.

What it means for prediction markets

• Court review is the immediate issue: The briefs seek Supreme Court intervention; they are not a ruling on whether states can restrict sports-event contracts.
• Legal outcomes remain divided: Kalshi’s favorable preliminary-injunction result in the Third Circuit contrasts with losses in the Ninth and Sixth circuits.
• The dispute reaches the core product: A decision on federal preemption would address whether state gambling restrictions can apply to sports-event contracts.
• Tribal interests are split: New Kalshi partnerships coexist with broad tribal opposition, complicating the industry’s regulatory and commercial relationships.