The Commodity Futures Trading Commission sent two event-contract measures to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on Sept. 28, 2026: a proposed rule to define event contracts as swaps and an interim final rule to exclude casino-style gambling products from that definition. The filings land as federal appeals courts split over whether Kalshi’s sports contracts sit under federal commodities law or state and tribal gambling authority.
OIRA’s review page lists RIN 3038-AF82, “Further Definition of ‘Swap’ to Include Event Contracts,” as a proposed rule, and RIN 3038-AF81, “Further Definition of ‘Swap’ to Exclude Casino-Style Gambling Products,” as an interim final rule. Both were marked pending review as of Oct. 5, according to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
The timing matters because Kalshi’s core legal theory in sports-contract litigation depends on the Commodity Exchange Act’s treatment of swaps. If sports event contracts are swaps traded on a designated contract market, Kalshi argues the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction. State regulators and tribes argue the products are sports wagers that remain subject to gambling law.
What did the CFTC send to OIRA?
The CFTC sent one proposed rule and one interim final rule, not two ordinary proposals. The proposed rule would further define “swap” to include event contracts, according to OIRA’s listing for RIN 3038-AF82. The interim final rule would further define “swap” to exclude casino-style gambling products, according to OIRA’s listing for RIN 3038-AF81.
The full regulatory text has not been published in the Federal Register. That leaves the most important line unsettled for now: whether the CFTC’s event-contract definition would include sports contracts, exclude them through the casino-style gambling carveout, or draw a narrower distinction by product design.
The procedural distinction also matters. A proposed rule normally moves through Federal Register publication and a public comment period before becoming final. An interim final rule can take effect before the full notice-and-comment process is complete, although agencies often still request comments after publication.
Why do sports contracts turn on the word swap?
Kalshi’s sports litigation turns on whether its contracts fit the Commodity Exchange Act’s swap definition closely enough to trigger the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over swaps on designated contract markets. The proposed rule would give the agency a direct vehicle to answer that question for event contracts, while the interim final rule would give it a separate tool to keep casino-style gambling products outside that category.
That pairing points to a regulatory line-drawing exercise rather than a simple endorsement of all event contracts. The CFTC can treat some event contracts as derivatives while still excluding products it views as gambling. Until the rule text is public, the treatment of sports contracts remains the market-moving question.
The issue is no longer theoretical. Kalshi, Robinhood, Crypto.com and other firms have tested sports event contracts against state gambling laws, and the appellate record now cuts in different directions depending on the jurisdiction.
What have appeals courts said about Kalshi sports contracts?
The appellate picture is split. The Third Circuit sided with Kalshi in New Jersey, while the Ninth Circuit sided with Nevada and later gave two California tribes a partial win under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The Sixth Circuit then ruled against Kalshi in Ohio and Tennessee.
On April 6, the Third Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction against New Jersey enforcement. In KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty, the court said Kalshi had shown a reasonable chance of success on its argument that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts New Jersey law as applied to sports-related event contracts on Kalshi’s CFTC-licensed designated contract market, according to the Third Circuit opinion.
On Aug. 28, the Ninth Circuit went the other way in Nevada. In KalshiEX LLC v. Assad, the court held that Kalshi’s sports event contracts were likely not swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and allowed Nevada to enforce its gaming laws against those contracts, according to the Ninth Circuit opinion.
On Sept. 16, the Ninth Circuit addressed the tribal-land version of the fight. In Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi Inc., the court reversed in part the denial of a preliminary injunction sought by Blue Lake Rancheria and Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians. The panel said the tribes were likely to succeed on their claim that Kalshi’s sports contracts offered on tribal lands violated IGRA, while affirming the rejection of a Lanham Act claim, according to the Ninth Circuit opinion.
On Sept. 25, the Sixth Circuit added another ruling against Kalshi. In the Ohio and Tennessee cases, the court held that Kalshi had not shown its sports event contracts satisfy the statutory definition of a swap, and it separately held that the Commodity Exchange Act did not expressly or impliedly preempt Ohio or Tennessee gambling laws even if the contracts were swaps. The court affirmed the Ohio ruling denying Kalshi a preliminary injunction, vacated the Tennessee injunction in Kalshi’s favor and remanded, according to the Sixth Circuit opinion.
Why are tribes fighting Kalshi’s sports contracts?
Tribes argue that sports event contracts are sports betting by another name when offered to users on tribal lands. Their legal theory is grounded in IGRA, tribal gaming ordinances and the exclusivity many tribes negotiated through gaming compacts or federal procedures.
The Ninth Circuit’s Blue Lake opinion treated that claim as distinct from state-regulator suits. The panel noted that other Kalshi cases involved state gaming regulation, not event contracts offered on tribal lands. That distinction matters because IGRA gives tribes and federal law a separate framework for Class III gaming on Indian lands.
The financial stakes are not limited to whether one exchange can list contracts on the Super Bowl or an NBA game. Tribal gaming revenue supports government services, jobs and reinvestment on tribal lands. If federally regulated event-contract exchanges can offer sports products into tribal jurisdictions without tribal authorization, tribes say that would weaken the exclusivity structure underlying a major part of Indian gaming law.
What is happening in the New Mexico tribal case?
Four New Mexico tribes sued Kalshi in May 2026 in Mescalero Apache Tribe et al. v. Kalshi Inc. et al., No. 2:26-cv-01517, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The complaint challenges Kalshi’s sports contracts under tribal gaming law and IGRA.
Kalshi and KalshiEx filed a motion to dismiss on June 24, according to the public docket. The company’s position in related litigation is that it operates a federally regulated designated contract market outside tribal lands and that its contracts fall under CFTC authority rather than tribal gaming regulation.
That case now sits alongside the California tribal dispute, the Nevada ruling, the Ohio and Tennessee ruling and the New Jersey ruling. Together, they create a legal map in which Kalshi has a favorable Third Circuit decision, adverse Sixth and Ninth Circuit decisions, and active tribal litigation that raises questions not fully resolved by the state-regulator cases.
How could the CFTC rules change the litigation?
The CFTC’s proposed event-contract rule could strengthen the argument that at least some event contracts are swaps if the final text expressly brings them within the statutory definition. That would matter most in courts evaluating whether federal commodities law preempts state gambling restrictions.
The casino-style gambling interim final rule could cut in the opposite direction. If the CFTC excludes certain gambling-like products from the swap definition, litigants will fight over whether sports contracts fall on the event-contract side or the gambling-product side of the line.
The rules also may affect timing. Courts deciding preliminary injunctions have been working from the existing statute, CFTC regulations and product filings. A final CFTC rule would add a new agency interpretation, but it would not automatically end the disputes. States and tribes could still challenge the rule, argue that sports products fit within the exclusion, or argue that IGRA and state gambling laws operate independently of the CFTC’s derivatives framework.
What happens next?
The next formal step is completion of OIRA review. After that, the CFTC can publish the proposed rule and interim final rule, making the text public and opening the next round of legal and political pressure from exchanges, tribes, states, sportsbooks and other market participants.
The near-term court milestones are equally important. The Ninth Circuit tribal case returns to the district court for further proceedings on the preliminary injunction request by Blue Lake Rancheria and Chicken Ranch Rancheria. In the Sixth Circuit cases, the Ohio denial of an injunction remains in place and the Tennessee injunction has been vacated. The practical question for Kalshi is whether the CFTC can define event contracts fast enough, and clearly enough, to offset a growing body of appellate rulings that treats sports contracts as something states and tribes can still police.
