Is the CFTC regulating prediction markets or 'cleaning up' before the Supreme Court?
Steve Ruddock (Gaming Law Review) analyzes the CFTC's emergency orders amid legal setbacks — and whether the agency is consolidating ground for a US Supreme Court battle.
Highlights
- Central question: is the CFTC regulating prediction markets or consolidating ground before a Supreme Court case?
- Kalshi faces setbacks: adverse rulings in Utah and Connecticut, with explicit rebukes of the CFTC
- New York tried to shut down Kalshi — and was blocked by the CFTC itself, which protects national operations
- Emergency orders and advisories from the agency amid multiple judicial defeats
- If the case reaches the Supreme Court, the ruling redefines what can be traded as a derivative
Gaming Law Review's editor-in-chief Steve Ruddock asks an uncomfortable question: is the CFTC regulating prediction markets — or 'cleaning them up' before a case lands at the Supreme Court? The analysis starts from the agency's recent emergency orders and advisories amid multiple legal setbacks.
The central question
The CFTC issued emergency orders and advisories amid judicial defeats: states like Utah and Connecticut rejected event-market operations, and New York tried to shut down Kalshi — only to be blocked by the CFTC itself. For Ruddock, the pattern suggests the agency may be consolidating ground before a Supreme Court battle.
The setbacks context
The post details how Kalshi's legal headaches multiply: adverse rulings in Utah and Connecticut, with explicit rebukes of the CFTC. The agency, meanwhile, issues orders protecting the markets' national operation — a delicate balance between regulation and defending its own jurisdiction.
Why it matters
Ruddock's analysis is a reference for anyone following prediction markets' regulatory future: if the case reaches the US Supreme Court, the ruling redefines what can be traded as a derivative — and all of iGaming watches.