州级游戏立法者敦促最高法院审查Kalshi案件

A multi-state coalition of U.S. lawmakers calls on the Supreme Court to intervene in Kalshi's jurisdiction battle with regulators

A coalition of U.S. state lawmakers has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a jurisdiction dispute involving forecasting market platform Kalshi and New Jersey's gaming regulators. An amicus court opinion filed this week noted that the National Gaming State Legislators Committee (NCLGS) believes that a ruling in Kalshi's favor could severely limit states 'powers to regulate similar sports betting products offered through the forecast market.

The document supports a petition by the New Jersey Attorney General and the gaming authority seeking a warrant for a warrant. According to court documents, the petition, filed on September 2, asked the Supreme Court to consider whether state authorities or federal agencies have control over the forecast market company. The controversy stems from the appeal process after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision.

Core Points

• NCLGS filed an amicus curiae opinion urging the Supreme Court to uphold New Jersey's position in the Kalshi case.
• Lawmakers warned that a ruling in Kalshi's favor could leave states "unable to regulate" when faced with sports betting through the predictive market.
• The opinion defines gambling regulation as a state responsibility, but does not directly resolve the dispute over the jurisdiction of the Federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) over contracts subject to federal regulation.
• Kalshi has not submitted a formal response, although the company has previously said it should not be bound by the decentralized regulatory system of states.

NCLGS呼吁最高法院干预

周二，NCLGS向美国最高法院提交了法庭之友陈述。该组织支持新泽西州的请求，希望该国最高司法机关受理此案。案件的核心在于，州政府能在多大程度上监管那些提供与现实世界事件挂钩合约的预测市场平台。

立法者的论点基于他们认为可能随最高法院裁决而产生的实际影响。在他们看来，如果Kalshi自称为“体育博彩”的活动被视为不在州监管范围内，其他在高度监管的赌博市场中运营的实体可能会寻求相同的法律分类。

意见书中的一段文字警告称，企业可能会改变其产品以获取类似的待遇，迫使各州重新审视目前用于治理此类“恶习活动”的监管框架。该意见书还强调了潜在的“重大伤害和混乱”，并将州权力减弱的可能性描述为对现有监管制度的破坏。

博弈焦点：州权与联邦监管的对立

新泽西州请愿书的核心是一个管辖权问题：监管权应主要由州博彩当局行使，还是由联邦监管机构——特别是商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）——行使。最高法院被请求解决这一不确定性，因为它影响着预测市场产品如何归入现有的法律类别。

The NCLGS opinion took a broad position that "matters related to gambling" should be reserved for states. However, the opinion did not adequately address another competing reasoning raised in the dispute: that when traded in federally regulated markets, certain event contracts may fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC.

This tension is crucial to market participants because it goes beyond the Kalshi case itself. If legal boundaries are redrawn in favor of federal priorities, states may lose the ability not only to regulate predictive market platforms, but also to regulate ecosystems of surrounding operators that try to build products under the same umbrella structure.

Timeline and procedural landscape

New Jersey's petition for cervication was filed on September 2. The move follows an appeal decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit-an appeal step that often suggests the case has raised significant legal issues in lower courts.

At the Supreme Court level, Kalshi has not yet issued a formal response in the case file. The company has until November 9 to submit a brief setting out its position. In a statement after the initial submission, a Kalshi spokesman said the company could not be regulated by "50 different regulators," pointing to inconsistent regulation among states.

虽然这一评论并未解决最高法院面前的法律问题，但它凸显了预测市场监管伴随的实际运营现实：合规制度在不同司法管辖区之间可能存在显著差异，企业可能会主张，在已涉及联邦监管的情况下，应由联邦标准进行规范。

此案为何可能塑造预测市场的未来

预测市场已发展成为一个更广泛的部门，处于金融、体育和消费者投注的交汇点。这使得管辖权的清晰性变得尤为重要。如果没有清晰的管辖权，平台可能在许可、产品设计以及其合约是被视为博彩还是受联邦商品法管辖的其他事物方面面临不确定性。

NCLGS的意见书表明，各州将这种不确定性视为管理赌博相关行为的直接威胁。立法者认为，如果最高法院采纳限制州权力的解读，各州需要重构其监管体系，而其他运营商可能会尝试“修改其业务和产品”以捕获由此解释带来的任何法律优势。

相反，案件中反映的联邦管辖权论点提出了另一方面的担忧：即通过受联邦监管结构交易的事件合约可能不受单独的州监管约束，这可能与CFTC的监管框架产生冲突。

For traders, developers and investors focusing on this area, the results may determine how prediction market platforms plan for expansion. It may affect whether companies prioritize state-by-state compliance strategies when building products or rely more on federal frameworks.

With the Supreme Court now considering whether to review the controversy, the key next step is the formal Supreme Court brief that Kalshi will file by November 9. Readers should pay close attention to how the company defines jurisdictional boundaries-particularly in its relationship to federal CFTC regulation-and whether arguments about state priority and federal exclusivity converge or remain sharply divided.