for early access to the latest igaming videos!
and get the latest igaming news first!
Idaho has joined a broad, 39-state coalition pushing back against what it sees as a major overreach by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
The states argue that the federal agency is attempting to claim authority over sports betting that Congress never gave it, and Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador says the move threatens the state’s ability to enforce its own gambling laws.
The dispute centers on online platforms that began offering sports wagers under the label of “event contracts” on federally regulated futures exchanges. For more than a year, the CFTC avoided endorsing these products, but under new leadership, the agency shifted course and sided with the platforms in litigation.
“States like Idaho that choose to ban sports betting would be prevented from enforcing those bans under the CFTC’s theory,” he said.
Coalition pushes back against federal overreach
The coalition’s brief lays out why the states believe the CFTC’s position cannot stand. They argue that federal agencies do not have special authority to define the limits of their own power, especially when claiming new jurisdiction over major policy areas.
The states point to Supreme Court precedent requiring clear congressional authorization before an agency can expand its reach into significant issues. In this case, they say Congress never intended for financial reform laws passed after the 2008 crisis to give the CFTC control over sports betting.
Gambling regulation has long been handled by states, and the brief stresses that Congress must speak clearly if it intends to shift that authority.
The states also highlight that the CFTC itself has admitted it lacks expertise in gambling regulation and has no gambling‑specific rules, while states have built systems for licensing, age verification, addiction programs, and integrity monitoring.
Case tied to Nevada lawsuits and wider constitutional questions
The dispute is now before the Ninth Circuit, which is reviewing cases involving Nevada’s enforcement of its gambling laws against prediction market platforms.
The 39-state coalition filed its brief in support of Nevada, arguing that states must retain the authority to regulate gambling regardless of how platforms label their products. The case carries implications far beyond sports betting. The states warn that if a federal agency can reinterpret old statutes to claim control over areas traditionally managed by states, the balance between state and federal power could be undermined.
Labrador framed the issue as a constitutional one, stating, “An unelected federal agency claims it discovered hidden authority in fifteen-year-old financial reform laws to override state gambling laws nationwide. Congress never granted that power, and Idaho will continue defending our right to regulate gambling as we see fit.”
The coalition is urging the court to reject the CFTC’s position unless Congress clearly authorizes such a shift.
