Kalshi seeks more time to answer New Jersey at Supreme Court

Kalshi has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for 30 more days to answer New Jersey’s petition seeking review of the legal status of its sports-event contracts. The request would move its response deadline from Oct. 8 to Nov. 9.

Gaming America reported the extension request. The Supreme Court docketed New Jersey’s case, No. 26-299, on Sept. 8.

As we reported Sept. 2, New Jersey had asked the justices to resolve whether the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act prevents states from applying their gambling laws to sports bets offered on Commodity Futures Trading Commission-registered markets. The petition was brought by Mary Jo Flaherty, interim director of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, and Attorney General Jennifer Davenport against KalshiEX LLC.

The case follows an April 6 decision in which the Third Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, upheld a preliminary injunction preventing New Jersey from enforcing its sports-gambling laws against Kalshi. The court concluded that Kalshi had a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on its argument that federal law preempts the state’s restrictions.

Kalshi operates a CFTC-licensed designated contract market and offers contracts tied to outcomes ranging from elections and weather to film box office and sports. The Third Circuit held that its sports-related contracts were swaps within the Commodity Exchange Act’s federal jurisdiction, and noted that the CFTC had not found those contracts contrary to the public interest.

New Jersey’s petition points to the contrary result in Kalshi v. Assad, where the Ninth Circuit held that Dodd-Frank does not preempt state gaming regulation of Kalshi’s sports markets. That direct circuit split is central to the state’s request for Supreme Court review.

The dispute carries broader consequences for a market that has expanded into sports contracts nationally. Sportico reported that Kalshi began offering such contracts in January 2025, following Crypto.com’s late-December 2024 launch. A Supreme Court ruling could determine whether the products operate under federal oversight nationwide or require approval under individual state regimes.