Crypto.com, Robinhood Ask SCOTUS Ruling on Prediction Markets

Jonathan Rodriguez

Written by: Jonathan Rodriguez

Published: Mon Sep 14, 2026, 12:00 pm ET

Read Time: 5 minutes

Crypto.com, Robinhood Ask SCOTUS Ruling on Prediction Markets

industry

Crypto.com and Robinhood have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify federal authority over sports prediction markets.

Their petitions add to a growing legal fight involving the CFTC, state regulators, and prediction-market operators.

At the center of the dispute sits a key question about the Commodity Exchange Act. Specifically, courts must determine whether the CFTC has exclusive authority over sports event contracts.

The issue has become more urgent after conflicting rulings from the Third and Ninth Circuits.

Crypto.com Takes Its Case to the Supreme Court

Crypto.com's North American Derivatives Exchange filed its Supreme Court petition on Sept. 11.

The filing followed Robinhood's separate petition challenging the Ninth Circuit's decision involving Nevada.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that sports event contracts do not qualify as swaps under the CEA. It also rejected claims that federal law preempts Nevada's gambling regulations.

Crypto.com argues that federally regulated prediction markets should remain within the CFTC's jurisdiction. The company also challenges state efforts to impose conflicting gambling requirements.

The dispute could determine how prediction markets operate across states with different gambling laws.

For operators, the stakes extend beyond Nevada. A ruling favoring state authority could expose prediction markets to licensing, taxation, and other gambling requirements.

Robinhood Adds Another Supreme Court Petition

Robinhood has also asked the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.

The company argued that its sports-related event contracts fall within federal derivatives regulation. However, the Ninth Circuit rejected Robinhood's preemption arguments.

Robinhood's petition therefore gives the Supreme Court another opportunity to examine the CFTC's regulatory reach.

Meanwhile, Robinhood continues expanding its prediction-market operations despite the legal uncertainty. The company recently partnered with Crypto.com and OG.com to route certain football contracts through a federally regulated exchange.

That expansion puts additional focus on the unresolved boundary between prediction markets and traditional sports wagering.

Kalshi Pursues a Different Route

Kalshi has taken a parallel approach rather than relying solely on Supreme Court review.

The company filed for an en banc rehearing in the Ninth Circuit after the panel ruled against its sports contracts.

Kalshi is challenging the panel's interpretation of the CEA and related CFTC rules. The company particularly disputes the panel's reliance on existing regulatory interpretations surrounding gaming contracts.

The Ninth Circuit previously held that Kalshi's sports contracts were not swaps under the CEA. It also found that CFTC regulations prohibit designated contract markets from listing certain gaming-related contracts.

Kalshi's en banc strategy could therefore give the Ninth Circuit another opportunity to reconsider the panel's reasoning.

That approach differs from Crypto.com, Robinhood, and New Jersey. Those parties have taken their respective disputes directly to the Supreme Court through cert petitions.

CFTC Pushes Back Against the Ninth Circuit

The CFTC has also taken a direct position in the dispute.

The agency joined Kalshi in challenging the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of its regulatory framework. However, the panel rejected the CFTC and Kalshi's reading of the relevant rule.

The Ninth Circuit said Kalshi and the CFTC misread the regulation governing gaming-related contracts.

The court concluded that existing CFTC rules prohibit designated contract markets from listing contracts involving gaming.

That finding has significant implications for the agency's role. It means CFTC registration alone may not shield sports prediction contracts from state gambling enforcement.

The CFTC's disagreement with the ruling adds another dimension to the Supreme Court debate. The justices could ultimately need to determine how the CEA interacts with state gambling laws.

New Jersey Also Asks the Supreme Court to Act

The latest petitions follow New Jersey's separate Supreme Court filing involving Kalshi. New Jersey asked the justices to review a Third Circuit ruling that favored Kalshi's federal regulatory position.

The state argues that prediction-market sports contracts should remain subject to state gambling laws. It also disputes the idea that the CEA broadly prevents states from regulating sports wagering.

New Jersey's petition creates an important counterpoint to the filings from Crypto.com and Robinhood.

The state is effectively asking the Supreme Court to preserve state authority. Meanwhile, the prediction-market operators seek stronger federal protection under the CEA.

Circuit Split Puts CFTC Authority Under Pressure

The competing cases have produced a significant split between federal appeals courts.

The Third Circuit found that Kalshi's sports contracts fall within federal derivatives regulation. It therefore favored CFTC jurisdiction over the contracts.

However, the Ninth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion. It determined that the sports contracts were not swaps and could remain subject to Nevada's gambling laws.

That conflict creates uncertainty for prediction markets across the country.

It also raises broader questions for USA gambling regulation. Traditional sportsbooks operate under state licensing systems, while prediction markets argue for federal oversight.

The outcome could therefore affect the competitive landscape for prediction markets and US online sportsbooks.

Supreme Court Could Shape Prediction-Market Regulation

The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear these disputes.

Nevertheless, the combination of petitions and the circuit split increases pressure for a definitive ruling.

A Supreme Court decision favoring the CFTC could strengthen federal oversight of prediction markets. It could also restrict states from applying their gambling laws to federally regulated contracts.

Conversely, a ruling favoring state authority could require operators to navigate individual gambling regimes.

For now, Crypto.com, Robinhood, and Kalshi are pursuing different legal strategies. New Jersey is also pushing for Supreme Court review from the state-regulatory side.

Together, those efforts highlight the unresolved battle over prediction markets.

The eventual outcome could determine whether sports prediction contracts operate primarily as federally regulated financial products or as gambling products subject to state oversight.

Jonathan Rodriguez
Jonathan Rodriguez

Jonathan is an avid basketball fan, and is often looking forward to the next upcoming NBA season when not checking players' stats during games. He also likes to keep his ears on the ground for the latest rumblings in the online casino industry.

This site contains commercial content. We may be compensated for the links provided on this page. The content on this page is for informational purposes only. Betting News makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the information given or the outcome of any game or event.