for early access to the latest igaming videos!
and get the latest igaming news first!
Kalshi’s bid to keep offering sports‑event contracts in Massachusetts ran into tough questions from the state’s highest court on Monday (May 4).
Justices on the Supreme Judicial Court pressed the company’s lawyer, Grant Mainland, as he argued that only the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has authority over its business. Mainland asked the panel to overturn an injunction that blocks Kalshi from letting users place financial bets on football, baseball and other sports without a state gaming license.
“This is fundamentally a federal regulatory issue,” Mainland told the court, according to Reuters. But several of the seven justices challenged him on how Kalshi’s products differ from traditional sportsbooks, which fall under state oversight.
Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian cut to the heart of the matter, asking, “In what way do they differentiate from what would colloquially be known as a bet.”
Massachusetts looking to become second state to ban Kalshi
The case in Massachusetts has become a key front in the wider legal fight over how prediction markets are regulated.
Kalshi, along with similar firms, lets users trade on outcomes of events ranging from elections to sports. State officials argue that these platforms are operating without proper licenses and are breaking gaming laws, including rules that bar wagers from anyone under 21.
Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell filed suit against Kalshi last September and won a preliminary injunction in February that would stop the company from offering sports contracts in the state. That order has been paused while Kalshi appeals, but if it takes effect, Massachusetts would join Nevada as the second state to block the firm through the courts.
Mainland insisted that the state has no authority here, pointing to the company’s registration with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. He argued that its sports contracts qualify as “swaps,” a type of derivative Congress placed under exclusive CFTC oversight in the Dodd‑Frank Act.
He went on to note that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed this position in April, stopping New Jersey regulators from pursuing enforcement, and that the CFTC itself filed an amicus brief supporting Kalshi’s appeal in Massachusetts.
Still, Justice Scott Kafker, like many others around the country, questioned whether Congress ever intended to strip states of their traditional role in policing gambling. “If you want to gamble on a game, this is one way to do it,” he said, adding that Congress would have been expected to speak clearly if it meant to remove state powers.
Assistant Attorney General Gerard Cedrone shared that view, warning that siding with Kalshi would mark a “sea change” in gaming regulation. “It would be blocking out state regulation of what is in all respects a sports bet,” he told the justices.
