Quick answer: Yes, under federal law. Prediction markets that run on exchanges registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), such as Kalshi and Polymarket US, are legal in the United States. What remains unsettled is how far states can restrict them, above all their sports contracts: two federal appeals courts have reached opposite conclusions, and New Jersey has asked the Supreme Court to settle the question.
Status as of September 22, 2026. This is informational, not legal advice. New rulings arrive most weeks, and the prediction market litigation tracker carries each one as it lands.
Are prediction markets legal in the US?
At the federal level, yes. The CFTC, the agency that oversees futures and swaps, treats a regulated event contract as a derivative under the Commodity Exchange Act, which puts it under federal oversight rather than state gaming boards. Many states dispute that, as explained below. An exchange that wants to list these contracts registers as a designated contract market (DCM). That brings market surveillance, reporting and recordkeeping obligations, and it lets the exchange list a new contract by self-certifying it with the CFTC instead of waiting for approval. The CFTC can review a certified contract after the fact.
The platforms operating this way include Kalshi, Polymarket US, Rothera, DKeX, ProphetX, Underdog's UDX, Novig and Crypto.com's CDNA. The full roster, with each registered entity and its clearinghouse, is in every CFTC-regulated prediction market.
The federal rulebook is still being written. On June 12, 2026 the CFTC published a proposed rule, "Prediction Markets; Public Interest Determinations," that would set out the factors it applies when deciding whether an event contract is contrary to the public interest and so may not be listed, and would define "gaming" for that purpose. The proposal preliminarily finds that certain sports contracts are likely contrary to the public interest, including contracts that settle solely on a specific athlete's injury and contracts that settle on referees' or umpires' officiating decisions, and it flags contracts on pre-collegiate or youth sports as raising public-interest concerns. The comment period closed on July 27, 2026. No final rule had been published as of this update, so none of it is binding yet.
Is Kalshi legal?
Yes. KalshiEX LLC has been a CFTC-designated contract market since November 2020, and it won the right to list election contracts in court. In September 2024 a federal judge in Washington, D.C. vacated the CFTC order that had blocked its congressional-control contracts, and in May 2025 the CFTC dropped its appeal (KalshiEX LLC v. CFTC).
Kalshi's sports contracts are where the fight is. They are the subject of nearly every state action on our tracker, and the results so far run in both directions:
- Restricted by court order or judgment. In Nevada, a state court granted the Gaming Control Board a preliminary injunction in its enforcement suit, and in July 2026 Kalshi agreed to geofence the state by August 12 or pay $120,000 a day. The Board says Kalshi missed the deadline and is seeking the daily payments, which Kalshi disputes. A Michigan state judge issued a preliminary injunction on September 1, 2026 barring its sports contracts there. In Washington, an amended preliminary injunction bars sports, election, politics and entertainment contracts, among others, while sparing commodities, climate, economics and finance. In Utah, a federal judge granted the state summary judgment in August 2026, and the Tenth Circuit denied Kalshi an injunction pending appeal.
- Shielded by federal courts. The Third Circuit upheld an injunction barring New Jersey from enforcing its gambling law against Kalshi's sports contracts, and a federal judge in Arizona blocked the state's criminal prosecution of Kalshi on the motion of the United States and the CFTC. Both rulings are preliminary.
For the company itself, including its market mix and volume, see the Kalshi platform page.
Is Polymarket legal in the US?
Through Polymarket US, yes. The original, on-chain Polymarket is offshore and restricts U.S. users. To come back to the U.S., Polymarket bought QCEX, a CFTC-licensed exchange and clearinghouse, for $112 million in July 2025; the CFTC issued an amended order of designation in November 2025, and Polymarket US began rolling out to American users on December 3, 2025. It is a separately registered exchange with its own rulebook. It faces state challenges of its own: a federal judge in Michigan denied it a preliminary injunction in June 2026, and it is a defendant in state enforcement suits in Rhode Island and Wisconsin and in a Baltimore consumer-protection action.
Are prediction markets legal in my state?
It depends on the state, the platform and the contract. Nearly every state action targets sports contracts, and courts rule platform by platform, so one exchange can be restricted in a state where another operates under a federal injunction, and a single order can bar some categories while leaving others alone. The state-by-state legality map has a profile for each jurisdiction.
Of the 51 jurisdictions we track (the 50 states and D.C.), 6 currently have a court order, judgment or state enforcement position in effect that restricts at least some platforms or contract types: Michigan, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Utah and Washington. Federal court orders shield platforms from state enforcement in 2: Arizona and New Jersey. Another 14 are in active litigation or enforcement that has not produced a restriction in force. One, North Carolina, has passed a law recognizing federal authority and taxing the platforms. The remaining 28 have taken no enforcement action against the platforms.
The table below lists every state where the fight has produced something concrete: a ruling, an injunction, a statute or an active suit. Nearly every entry is preliminary and under appeal. Each state links to its own profile, and the case index has the underlying dockets.
| State | Status | Court / forum | Key development | Next step |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | Contested — tribes won on appeal (IGRA) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | The Ninth Circuit held the tribes likely to succeed under IGRA (September 16, 2026, published): Kalshi’s sports contracts are class III gaming when entered from tribal land, and the Commodity Exchange Act does not displace IGRA. | The district case stays paused until the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate: at a September 24, 2026 hearing Judge Corley declined to lift the stay and will set a status conference once it does. The tribes also have a motion pending to amend their complaint to add another tribe. Any rehearing petition is due September 30, 2026. No injunction is in place yet. |
| New Jersey | Protected by injunction | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | New Jersey petitioned for certiorari on September 2, 2026, one day before its twice-extended deadline, asking the Supreme Court to resolve a Third/Ninth Circuit split over whether Dodd-Frank preempts state sports-gambling law. (+1 more action) | Docketed September 8, 2026 as No. 26-299. The Court extended Kalshi’s response to November 9, 2026, so the petition cannot reach conference before then. The first amicus brief, from the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States, was submitted September 22. Robinhood (No. 26-338) and Crypto.com (No. 26-344) have filed their own petitions from the Ninth Circuit. Nothing is granted — the overwhelming majority of petitions are denied. |
| Ohio | Restriction in effect; fine contested | Sixth Circuit (Ohio + Tennessee appeals) | The Sixth Circuit ruled for Ohio and Tennessee (September 25, 2026, published): sports contracts are not shown to be swaps, and even if they were, the CEA would not preempt either state’s gambling law. (+2 more actions) | A petition for rehearing en banc would be due fourteen days after judgment, about October 9, 2026; Kalshi could also seek certiorari. The Tennessee injunction ends when the mandate issues. Both cases then return to the district courts. The decision also ends the abeyance on Michigan’s remand appeal and binds the three Michigan platform appeals. |
| Tennessee | Contested — Kalshi’s injunction vacated on appeal | Sixth Circuit (Ohio + Tennessee appeals) | The Sixth Circuit ruled for Ohio and Tennessee (September 25, 2026, published): sports contracts are not shown to be swaps, and even if they were, the CEA would not preempt either state’s gambling law. | A petition for rehearing en banc would be due fourteen days after judgment, about October 9, 2026; Kalshi could also seek certiorari. The Tennessee injunction ends when the mandate issues. Both cases then return to the district courts. The decision also ends the abeyance on Michigan’s remand appeal and binds the three Michigan platform appeals. |
| Utah | Restricted — state won on the merits | U.S. District Court, D. Utah (Judge Shelby) | The court granted Utah summary judgment (August 2026), holding the CEA does not preempt the state’s gambling laws; the Tenth Circuit refused an injunction pending appeal on September 8. | The appeal proceeds in the Tenth Circuit (No. 26-4100) with no injunction in place. Kalshi filed its opening brief and a two-volume appendix on September 21, 2026 and asked for oral argument; Paradigm Operations has moved to file an amicus brief in its support. Utah’s answering brief is due October 21. |
| Washington | Restriction in effect — scope narrowed by category | King County Superior Court (Judge John McHale) | An amended preliminary injunction bars sports, elections, politics, entertainment, culture, tech/science and “mentions” contracts in Washington while expressly sparing commodities, climate, economics and finance; Judge McHale denied Kalshi’s motion to reconsider it in September 2026. (+4 more actions) | The geofencing deadlines of August 19 and September 2, 2026 have passed; no penalty proceedings have been reported. Judge McHale denied Kalshi’s motion for reconsideration or a stay in September 2026. Still preliminary — no merits judgment. The Court of Appeals denied a stay. |
| Nevada | Restriction in effect — compliance disputed | First Judicial District Court of Nevada (Carson City, No. 260000050-1B) | Kalshi stipulated in July 2026 to full geofencing by August 12 or about $120,000 a day; in August the Control Board told the court it missed the deadline and asked for the penalty, which Kalshi disputes. (+5 more actions) | The Board’s motion to impose the daily penalty is pending in Carson City; no ruling has been reported. Kalshi says it complied through GeoComply and that the Board’s test trades were improper. |
| Wisconsin | Contested on several fronts — mixed signals | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Judge William C. Griesbach) | Judge Griesbach denied the United States and the CFTC a preliminary injunction against Wisconsin (July 2026), along with three motions to intervene; three appeals followed and were consolidated in the Seventh Circuit. (+4 more actions) | Consolidated Seventh Circuit appeal (Nos. 26-2636, 26-2675 and 26-2696; motion to expedite denied). All three appellants filed opening briefs on September 21, 2026 — the United States and the CFTC, Kalshi, and the American Gaming Association — and Paradigm Operations filed an amicus brief on September 25. Wisconsin’s consolidated brief is due October 21, when the federal government may also answer Kalshi’s and the AGA’s briefs; replies are due November 12. |
| Minnesota | Statutory ban — enjoined, not in effect | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Nos. 0:26-cv-02778 and 0:26-cv-02841, consolidated with 0:26-cv-02661; Judge Katherine M. Menendez) | One July 27, 2026 opinion preliminarily enjoined the first statutory ban in all three consolidated cases, on express preemption, and only as to CFTC-registered designated contract markets. (+1 more action) | The injunction runs until a final decision on the merits. The lead docket shows no notice of appeal through September 27, 2026, after the sixty-day window for an appeal in the federal government’s case closed September 25. The State answered on August 17. A Rule 16 scheduling conference for the consolidated cases is set for October 15 before Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. Implied preemption and the First Amendment claims remain undecided below. |
| New York | Restriction in effect | S.D.N.Y. (Judge Analisa Torres, 1:25-cv-08846) | Preliminary injunction denied (July 2026); CEA held not to preempt New York gambling law. (+8 more actions) | On appeal at the Second Circuit (No. 26-1835). The court denied a temporary injunction on July 29, 2026 and referred the injunction motion to a three-judge panel, to be heard in tandem with the motion in KalshiEX LLC v. Cafferelli (Connecticut, No. 26-2239). Kalshi’s opening brief and joint appendix were filed August 31, 2026; the appellees’ brief is due October 30, 2026. The CFTC separately sued New York. |
| Arizona | Prosecution federally blocked (preliminary) | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Judge Michael T. Liburdi) | Judge Liburdi (D. Ariz.) enjoined Arizona’s criminal prosecution of Kalshi on the United States’ and the CFTC’s motion — a TRO in April 2026, then a preliminary injunction on May 5; Kalshi’s own motion had been denied. (+1 more action) | The preliminary injunction stands. Kalshi’s appeal of the April denial of its own motion (9th Cir. No. 26-2978) remains stayed pending the Assad mandate, which Kalshi’s September 9, 2026 rehearing petition holds back. In Arizona’s own appeal (No. 26-4281) the state moved on September 14 to vacate the injunction as to sports contracts; the CFTC answered that vacatur is premature until Assad is final. |
| Maryland | Contested — state authority upheld (preliminary) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | Kalshi’s injunction denied (2025); the Fourth Circuit heard argument in May 2026 and appeared skeptical of Kalshi. (+3 more actions) | Fourth Circuit decision pending — argued May 7, 2026 and undecided as of September 26. On September 25 Kalshi told the panel the CFTC expects its revised Rule 40.11 to be final within two months, and asked it to wait for the rule if it thinks the rule is relevant. The state agreed not to enforce until the court rules. |
| Massachusetts | Contested — litigation pending | Suffolk County Superior Court; Mass. Supreme Judicial Court | Preliminary injunction granted (January 2026); Massachusetts SJC took the case on direct review and heard argument in May 2026. (+4 more actions) | SJC decision pending; the injunction remains stayed while the appeal is decided. |
| Connecticut | Contested — litigation pending | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut | The United States and the CFTC moved for a preliminary injunction on September 11, 2026 (ECF 102), the day after Connecticut’s cease-and-desist orders to nine more platforms. (+6 more actions) | Connecticut’s response to the injunction motion was set for October 2, 2026, and an extension was granted September 17 (the new date is not on the public docket). Robinhood’s earlier motion to intervene is still pending; on September 11 it filed a notice citing its new cease-and-desist. No rulings. |
| Illinois | Contested — no ruling yet | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois | The CFTC sued Illinois (April 2026) after the Illinois Gaming Board’s cease-and-desist letters. (+2 more actions) | The preliminary-injunction motion has been fully briefed since July 22, 2026 and is undecided before Judge Pacold, who holds all three Illinois cases. |
| Iowa | Contested — injunction denied, on appeal | U.S. District Court, S.D. Iowa (Judge Locher) | Judge Locher denied Kalshi a preliminary injunction (September 8, 2026), finding express preemption unlikely and no irreparable harm; Kalshi appealed to the Eighth Circuit. | Eighth Circuit No. 26-2874: the hearing transcript is due October 27 and Kalshi’s opening brief November 6, 2026, with Iowa’s brief thirty days after that. Nothing bars Iowa from enforcing in the meantime. |
| Michigan | Restriction in effect (preliminary injunction) | Ingham County Circuit Court, 30th Judicial Circuit | Judge Aquilina converted the June TRO into a preliminary injunction on September 1, 2026, barring Kalshi’s sports contracts in Michigan with a $500,000-a-day geolocation penalty and notice to every broker that offers them. (+3 more actions) | The state case proceeds in Ingham County under the injunction; no appeal of it has been reported. Kalshi’s separate appeal of the remand order (6th Cir. No. 26-1639) was held in abeyance pending the Tennessee/Ohio appeal, which the Sixth Circuit decided against Kalshi on September 25, 2026 — so a status report and the end of the abeyance come next. This injunction is also the trigger in Robinhood’s and Coinbase’s Michigan standstill orders. |
| Montana | Contested — enforcement paused by agreement | U.S. District Court, D. Mont. (Judge Molloy) | Judge Molloy denied Kalshi’s injunction without prejudice (August 27, 2026); the case was dismissed by stipulation on September 21 in exchange for an enforcement standstill tied to the Ninth Circuit’s en banc process in Assad. | Closed. Montana may not enforce until the Ninth Circuit rules on Kalshi’s rehearing petition in Assad, and then only on thirty days’ notice. The dismissal is without prejudice as to the Attorney General and the Gambling Control Division, so the dispute can return. |
| Kentucky | Contested — no ruling yet | E.D. Ky. (Judge Wier); removed from Franklin Circuit Court | Kentucky’s AG sued Kalshi, Polymarket, and distribution partners (June 2026), plus an excise tax; the CFTC then sued the state. (+2 more actions) | A ruling on Kentucky’s motion to remand the Kalshi action, submitted to Judge Wier on September 1, 2026. Runs parallel to the CFTC’s suit against Kentucky. |
| New Mexico | Contested on six fronts | New Mexico state district court | The New Mexico Attorney General sued Kalshi (June 2026). (+5 more actions) | Pending before Judge Gonzales; no ruling. One of six New Mexico actions. |
| Rhode Island | Contested — no ruling yet | Rhode Island state court | Rhode Island’s AG sued Kalshi and Polymarket US (May 2026); the case is consolidated with Kalshi’s own suit, in which the United States and the CFTC intervened. (+2 more actions) | Consolidated with KalshiEx LLC v. Furcolo; a ruling on the three preliminary-injunction motions argued August 3, 2026 is pending. |
| Missouri | Contested — cease-and-desist letters, no suit yet | Missouri Attorney General — pre-suit letters (no court proceeding) | Missouri’s Attorney General gave six platforms thirty days to stop offering sports event contracts or be licensed and taxed as sportsbooks (letters dated September 16–17, 2026). | The thirty-day windows close October 16 (Kalshi, Polymarket, Crypto.com, Robinhood) and October 17 (Novig, Underdog), after which the letters say the State will sue. No suit by either side yet. |
| North Carolina | Legalized with a tax framework | Legislative — no litigation | July 2026 state law recognizes CFTC preemption and imposes a tax on prediction-market trading-fee revenue from NC residents, effective January 2027 (not a ban). | — |
| Texas | No restriction — operating normally | Legislative — no litigation | Lieutenant Governor directed Senate committees to investigate prediction markets (~March 2026); no enforcement action, committee recommendations expected 2027. | — |
For a filterable version with a chronological view of every ruling, see the litigation tracker. Platforms geolocate their users and apply these orders location by location, which makes a platform's own eligibility check the reliable answer for any single place (see restricted jurisdiction).
What is the federal-vs-state fight about?
It is a preemption fight. The Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over futures and swaps traded on exchanges, including the designated contract markets these platforms run. The platforms and the CFTC argue that this displaces state gambling law for contracts listed on those exchanges. The states argue that a contract on the outcome of a game is a sports bet, that gambling has always been theirs to regulate, and that a federal derivatives label does not change that.
The appeals courts have split on a threshold question: whether sports event contracts are "swaps" at all.
- On April 6, 2026, a divided Third Circuit panel held in KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty that Kalshi's sports contracts are likely swaps and that federal law likely preempts New Jersey's gambling law as applied to them.
- On August 28, 2026, the Ninth Circuit held in KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad, a Nevada case, that the same kind of contract is likely not a swap under the Act. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the Third that the Act preempts state regulation of futures trading; the two courts part ways on whether these contracts fall inside the Act.
- On September 25, 2026, the Sixth Circuit held in KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, deciding Ohio and Tennessee appeals together, that Kalshi had not shown its sports contracts are swaps — and that even if they were, the Act would not preempt either state's gambling law.
All three are preliminary-injunction rulings, not final judgments. The one final merits ruling so far came from the federal court in Utah, which held on August 4, 2026 that the Act does not preempt the state's gambling law. A second front opened on September 16, 2026, when the Ninth Circuit held in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi that sports contracts entered from tribal land are likely class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and that the Commodity Exchange Act's exclusive jurisdiction does not reach them. It sent the case back to the trial court to decide whether to grant an injunction.
Will the Supreme Court decide?
It has been asked to. New Jersey petitioned for certiorari on September 2, 2026, and the case was docketed on September 8 as No. 26-299, framed around the Third/Ninth Circuit split. The Court extended Kalshi's response deadline to November 9, 2026, so the petition cannot be considered before then. Robinhood (No. 26-338) and Crypto.com (No. 26-344) have filed petitions of their own from Ninth Circuit losses, and Kalshi has petitioned the Ninth Circuit for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in Assad. Nothing has been granted, and the Court turns down the large majority of petitions. The full sequence is laid out on the path to the Supreme Court.
What else is still pending?
- More appeals courts. The Fourth Circuit (Maryland), Second Circuit (New York and Connecticut), Tenth Circuit (Utah) and Eighth Circuit (Iowa, where Kalshi appealed after being denied an injunction on September 8) all have appeals in progress, and Massachusetts's highest court is reviewing the state's preliminary injunction against Kalshi.
- The federal government as plaintiff. The United States and the CFTC have sued eight states (Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York and Wisconsin) and intervened in Kalshi's own suit against Rhode Island. They have won injunctions in Arizona and Minnesota and lost one in Wisconsin.
- State legislation. Minnesota passed the first statutory ban on prediction-market platforms; a federal judge preliminarily enjoined it on July 27, 2026 as to CFTC-registered exchanges, so it is not in force. North Carolina went the other way with a July 2026 law that recognizes the CFTC's authority and taxes trading-fee revenue.
- New enforcement. Connecticut ordered nine platforms, seven of them for the first time, to stop offering sports contracts on September 10, 2026, and Missouri's Attorney General sent cease-and-desist letters dated September 16 and 17 to six platforms.
Is a prediction market the same as sports betting, legally?
That is the question the whole fight turns on. A contract on a CFTC-registered exchange is structured as a federally overseen derivative, which is why it falls to the CFTC. States that disagree argue that its resemblance to a sportsbook wager should place it under their gambling laws. To a user the two can look alike; legally they are being treated as different instruments, pending the courts. For the practical differences, see sports betting vs. prediction markets.
Common questions
Is it legal for me, personally, to use a prediction market?
On a CFTC-registered U.S. exchange, trading event contracts is lawful under federal law, subject to the exchange's own eligibility rules, such as age and account requirements. Where you live can narrow that: in states with a restriction in effect, some platforms or contract types are unavailable. Check the platform's own location-specific eligibility, and see your state's profile on the legality map.
What about offshore or on-chain sites?
Platforms that are not registered with the CFTC, including the global version of Polymarket, restrict U.S. users. The regulated path for a U.S. resident runs through a registered exchange.
To see what is trading on these exchanges right now, browse the markets. For the mechanics underneath all of this, start with what a prediction market is.
This explainer reflects the U.S. legal and regulatory landscape as of September 22, 2026. It is informational and not legal advice. Verify current status before relying on it.