Supreme Court of the United States
New Jersey's Supreme Court petition in Flaherty v. KalshiEX
No. 26-299 · 33 pages
Filed
Supreme Court petitionPending; Kalshi's response due Dec. 7, 2026
Cite this page
Bluebook
New Jersey v. Kalshi Supreme Court Petition (No. 26-299): The Question and Where It Stands, Prediction Market Laws (last updated Nov. 7, 2026), https://predictionmarketlaws.com/documents/scotus-flaherty-v-kalshi-cert-petition.
APA
Prediction Market Laws. (2026, November 7). New Jersey v. Kalshi Supreme Court Petition (No. 26-299): The Question and Where It Stands. https://predictionmarketlaws.com/documents/scotus-flaherty-v-kalshi-cert-petition
New Jersey asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Third Circuit's decision for Kalshi. The petition argues that the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act did not take away a state's power to regulate sports bets placed within its borders just because the bets are offered on a CFTC-registered exchange, and that the federal appeals courts are now divided on the question.
The question presented
“Whether the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act preempted States from regulating sports bets that occur within their jurisdictions if those bets are offered on markets registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.”
Why the petition says the Court should take the case
- A split. The Third Circuit's decision conflicts with the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Kalshi v. Assad, and the petition says most lower courts have ruled against the Third Circuit's view.
- Stakes. The question affects a multibillion-dollar industry, states' police power over gambling and about 20 states in litigation, and the petition warns that Kalshi's theory could reach tribal gaming and state-licensed sportsbooks.
- Not swaps. Sports outcomes are not “swaps” under the statute's text and context, and Dodd-Frank was a financial-crisis reform, not a move to put sports betting under federal control.
- No preemption even if they were. The CFTC's “exclusive jurisdiction” excludes other federal agencies, not states, and the savings clauses point the same way.
Where it stands
Kalshi's response is due Dec. 7, 2026 after two extensions. Eleven amicus briefs were filed between Sept. 22 and Oct. 8, 2026, from groups including the National Football League, the American Gaming Association, 145 tribes, Ohio with 38 other states and D.C., and former CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler.
Where it fits in the case
New Jersey v. Kalshi (Supreme Court petition)Supreme Court of the United States, 26-299
- New Jersey applies (No. 25A1465) to extend the filing deadline.
- Justice Alito extends the deadline to Aug. 4, 2026.
- Justice Alito grants a second extension (requested July 22, 2026) to Sept. 3, 2026.
- Petition for certiorari filed. This petition
- Petition docketed as No. 26-299.
- Clerk grants Kalshi's Sept. 18, 2026 motion and extends its response deadline from Oct. 8, 2026 to Nov. 9, 2026; first amicus brief filed (National Council of Legislators from Gaming States).
- Amicus briefs filed by Ohio with 38 states and D.C., and by Stop Predatory Gambling and others.
Read and cite it
Cite the petition
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Flaherty v. KalshiEX, LLC, No. 26-299 (U.S. Sept. 2, 2026).
Cite this summary
Prediction Market Laws, New Jersey's Supreme Court petition in Flaherty v. KalshiEX (read Nov. 7, 2026), https://predictionmarketlaws.com/documents/scotus-flaherty-v-kalshi-cert-petition.