Meta description: Crypto.com and Robinhood asked the Supreme Court to review whether federal commodities law preempts state sports betting rules.

Tags: Crypto.com, Robinhood, Kalshi, CFTC, Missouri, Supreme Court

Market platform: none-if-cross-platform

Category: Regulation

Crypto.com’s registered derivatives exchange and Robinhood Derivatives have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive authority over sports event contracts. The petitions, now docketed as No. 26-344 and No. 26-338, arrive as states continue testing whether those contracts are federally regulated derivatives or illegal sports wagers under state law.

What did Crypto.com and Robinhood file at the Supreme Court?

North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc., doing business as Crypto.com Derivatives North America, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on September 11, 2026, according to Supreme Court docket No. 26-344. The petition was docketed on September 15 and arises from the Ninth Circuit case No. 25-7187, which followed Nevada district court litigation over state gambling enforcement.

Robinhood Derivatives, LLC filed its own petition on September 10, 2026, according to Supreme Court docket No. 26-338. The petition was docketed on September 14 and comes from the Ninth Circuit case No. 25-7831, also tied to Nevada’s effort to apply gaming law to sports event contracts offered through a CFTC-regulated entity.

A third petition, filed by New Jersey on September 2, is also pending. That case follows litigation in the Third Circuit, where the appeals court took a different view of the federal preemption issue than the Ninth Circuit did in late August. The split gives the Supreme Court a clean legal question: whether CFTC-regulated event contracts can be blocked by state gambling regulators when the contracts involve sporting outcomes.

Crypto.com’s core argument is that sports event contracts fit within the Commodity Exchange Act’s definition of swaps, including contracts whose payout depends on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of an event tied to a financial, economic or commercial consequence. Robinhood’s petition presses the federal-preemption issue but also asks the Court to account for ongoing CFTC rulemaking before allowing conflicting state regimes to define the market.

What did the Ninth Circuit rule?

The Ninth Circuit ruled on August 28, 2026, in KalshiEX LLC v. Assad, No. 25-7516, that sports event contracts do not qualify as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and that federal law does not preempt Nevada’s gaming regulations. The panel also found that CFTC rules governing event contracts bear on whether designated contract markets may list certain gaming-related products.

That ruling cut against the position taken by Kalshi and the CFTC in briefing. The agency had supported the view that federal commodities law displaced Nevada’s attempt to regulate the contracts as gambling, but the court rejected that theory. The decision immediately became the central appellate ruling for states seeking to apply sports betting laws to federally registered event-contract venues.

Kalshi asked the Ninth Circuit for en banc rehearing on September 9. That request remains relevant because the full Ninth Circuit could revisit the panel’s ruling while the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the Crypto.com, Robinhood or New Jersey petitions. If the justices grant review, the case could become the first Supreme Court test of how far the CFTC’s authority over retail-facing event contracts reaches.

Why does the Third Circuit split matter?

The Third Circuit reached a different conclusion in litigation involving New Jersey, giving the Supreme Court a more direct reason to intervene. The same federal statute is now being read differently by two federal appeals courts in disputes involving similar sports event contracts and state gambling enforcement.

For exchanges, the split affects whether a CFTC registration can support a nationwide product or whether each state can separately decide that sports-linked event contracts are unlawful wagers. For states, the issue is whether federal commodities law can override licensing, tax and consumer-protection systems built for sports betting.

The Supreme Court does not have to take the cases. But the petitions give the justices a live conflict involving federal commodities regulation, state police powers and a fast-growing retail product that now sits at the center of litigation across multiple jurisdictions.

What is Missouri doing now?

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway announced on September 18, 2026, that her office had issued cease-and-desist letters to six prediction market operators: Kalshi, Polymarket, Crypto.com, Robinhood, Novig and Underdog. The attorney general’s office said the companies were offering sports event contracts to Missourians in violation of Missouri sports wagering law.

The letters were dated September 16 and September 17, according to the DeFi Rate prediction markets litigation tracker. Each recipient was directed to confirm compliance within 30 days of its letter date or stop offering sports event contracts in Missouri unless licensed by the Missouri Gaming Commission. That puts the response windows on October 16 or October 17, depending on the date of the recipient’s letter.

Missouri voters approved Amendment 2 in November 2024, legalizing regulated sports betting under Missouri Gaming Commission oversight. The attorney general’s September 18 announcement said any company offering sports wagering in Missouri must be licensed by the commission, pay required taxes and fees, and prevent people under 21 from placing bets.

“Companies cannot repackage sports bets as ‘event contracts’ to avoid Missouri law,” Hanaway said in the announcement. The statement framed the letters as an enforcement action under Missouri’s sports wagering framework, not as a court ruling on whether the Commodity Exchange Act preempts state law.

How are the state cases breaking?

The state-by-state record is mixed, and the procedural posture matters. In Michigan, Ingham County Judge Rosemarie E. Aquilina entered a preliminary injunction against Kalshi on September 1. In separate federal litigation in the Western District of Michigan, Robinhood stipulated before Judge Paul L. Maloney that it would stop issuing new sports contracts by September 9 and close open positions by October 9.

In Ohio, a preliminary injunction request was denied and the dispute moved to the Sixth Circuit. In Utah, state enforcement was allowed to proceed. Those rulings have given state regulators more leverage in venues where courts have been unwilling to treat CFTC registration as a complete shield against gambling enforcement.

Platforms have had better results in other states. Courts have granted preliminary relief blocking state enforcement in Minnesota, Arizona and Tennessee, according to the litigation tracker and the relevant court dockets. Illinois is in a different posture: the state agreed to a non-enforcement standstill while preliminary-injunction motions remained pending, rather than operating under a court-granted injunction.

Connecticut is also still unsettled. The CFTC filed a federal suit challenging state enforcement, and Robinhood sought to intervene, but the preliminary-injunction request remained pending as of September 11. Separately, Kalshi’s request for preliminary relief in Connecticut had been denied, leaving that state outside the group of jurisdictions where platforms have already secured an injunction.

A separate Ninth Circuit panel added another legal front on September 16 in Blue Lake Rancheria v. KalshiEX. The court reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction for tribal plaintiffs and found that Kalshi’s contracts likely violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act when offered on tribal lands. That ruling turns on tribal gaming law, not only on the swap-definition and preemption questions now before the Supreme Court.

What is the CFTC’s role?

The CFTC remains central to the dispute because the exchanges rely on federal commodities registration as the basis for offering event contracts. The agency has also been considering how to clarify its event-contract rules, including Rule 40.11, the regulation governing certain contracts tied to gaming, war, terrorism, assassination and other categories listed in the Commodity Exchange Act.

Any CFTC rulemaking would have to move through the Federal Register notice-and-comment process. Robinhood’s Supreme Court petition points to that regulatory process as a reason for the justices to avoid letting state enforcement splinter the market before the federal agency finishes its work.

The next concrete dates are now clustered in October. Responses to the Robinhood and Crypto.com Supreme Court petitions are due October 14 and October 15, respectively, according to the Supreme Court dockets. Robinhood’s Michigan stipulation requires open sports contract positions to be closed by October 9. Missouri’s cease-and-desist response windows run to October 16 or October 17, based on the date of each letter.