Verticals / Prediction markets
Prediction markets
Prediction markets are contested in 23 states as of Oct 12, 2026.
CFTC-registered event contracts (Kalshi, Polymarket, etc.) on sports/events. Trading volume, federal licenses and lawsuits are on the prediction markets overview.
ContestedNot authorized
By state
| State | Status | Launched | Model | Current tax | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Contested | The Department of Gaming issued a cease-and-desist letter to Kalshi (and Crypto.com) around May 2025, calling its Arizona event-contract trading unlicensed illegal gambling. Kalshi preemptively sued Attorney General Kris Mayes and Department officials in the U.S. District Court for Arizona on March 12, 2026, seeking to block enforcement on CFTC-preemption grounds. On March 16, 2026 the Arizona AG filed criminal charges (20 misdemeanor counts) against Kalshi and Kalshi Trading LLC in state Superior Court -- the first criminal prediction-market case filed by any state -- covering unlicensed wagers on pro/college sports, player props, and the 2028 presidential race. On March 17, 2026 the federal judge denied Kalshi's request to block state enforcement and ordered Kalshi to show cause by March 20, 2026 why the federal court should not abstain given the pending state criminal case. Both matters remained pending as of October 2026. | |||
| Arkansas | Contested | Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin issued Opinion No. 2025-073 on October 23, 2025 (requested by Sen. Bryan King), concluding that a Kalshi-style event-contract platform constitutes gambling/gaming requiring state licensure because a participant wagers on an uncertain future outcome, and that transmitting sports data "for the purpose of gaming" independently violates state law. The opinion is advisory and carries no direct enforcement force; Arkansas has not sent a cease-and-desist letter or sued a named platform, unlike states that have directly ordered Kalshi to cease operations. Arkansas sits in the Eighth Circuit, which has not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory. | |||
| California | Contested | Three California tribes (Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, and Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians) sued Kalshi and Robinhood over prediction-market sports contracts offered on or affecting tribal land. A federal judge denied the tribes' request to block the contracts while the case proceeds, finding they had not shown a likelihood of winning on the merits, and the litigation continues. California sits in the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against Kalshi on federal-preemption grounds in a separate Nevada case in August 2026, but no California court or regulator has yet acted on that basis.? | |||
| Connecticut | Contested | The DCP Gaming Division issued cease-and-desist letters dated Dec. 2, 2025 to Kalshi, Robinhood, and Crypto.com, ordering them to stop offering sports event contracts to CT residents and to let residents withdraw held funds, citing the lack of a state wagering license, no minimum-age (21) protections, and no consumer-dispute recourse. Kalshi sued in the U.S. District Court for Connecticut on CFTC-preemption grounds; Judge Vernon Oliver denied Kalshi's preliminary-injunction motion, and Kalshi appealed to the Second Circuit. Connecticut (AG William Tong, Gov. Lamont, and DCP Commissioner Bryan Cafferelli) separately sued Kalshi seeking an injunction against continued unlicensed sports-event-contract offers in the state. Connecticut was reported as the ninth state to issue Kalshi a cease-and-desist order. Connecticut sits in the 2nd Circuit (with NY and VT); Kalshi's appeal of the CT district court loss is pending there, so no 2nd Circuit ruling controls yet. The 3rd Cir. ruling for Kalshi (NJ, 2026-04-06) and the 6th Cir./9th Cir. rulings do not bind Connecticut. | |||
| Illinois | Contested | 1.75% HANDLE (online) | The IGB considers CFTC-registered sports/event contracts unlicensed sports wagering under the Sports Wagering Act and Criminal Code. It sent cease-and-desist letters to Crypto.com, Kalshi, and Robinhood (4/1/2025) and to Polymarket (1/27/2026); it also warned IGB licensees in October 2025 that participating in prediction markets "may impact that party's suitability for licensure." The CFTC and federal government have sued Illinois (among other states) arguing the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over these contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act; that litigation was ongoing as of this writing. Separately, Illinois' 2026 budget implementation act (Public Act 104-0468) added "exchange wagers" -- agreements, contracts, transactions, or swaps offered, traded, or executed on a prediction market or exchange tied to a sporting contest -- as a form of sports wagering under the Sports Wagering Act, effective July 1, 2026. This means exchange wagers are only permitted through Gaming-Board-licensed master sports wagering licensees, taxed at 1.75% of each exchange wager for a licensee's first 5,000,000 exchange wagers in a fiscal year and 3.5% above that count (see tax rates), with proceeds going to the Sports Wagering Fund. The new law does not itself license or authorize existing unregistered platforms such as Kalshi or Polymarket, which remain unlicensed and subject to the cease-and-desist letters described above. Illinois sits in the 7th Circuit, which has not ruled on whether the Commodity Exchange Act preempts state prediction-market/sports-wagering law; other circuits have split, with the 3rd Circuit ruling for Kalshi (New Jersey, April 2026) and the 6th and 9th Circuits ruling against it (Ohio/Tennessee and Nevada, September and August 2026). | ||
| Iowa | Contested | Kalshi sued Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and the IRGC in federal court (filed around 2026-03-11), seeking a declaration that the federal Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC "exclusive jurisdiction" over designated-contract-market trading preempt Iowa's gambling and election-wagering laws as applied to its event contracts; the suit followed an AG meeting Kalshi's counsel said made clear Bird believes its offerings violate Iowa law. In September 2026, U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher denied Kalshi's request for a preliminary injunction, holding that sports event contracts are not "swaps" under the Commodity Exchange Act and that Kalshi had not exhausted other avenues before suing, leaving Kalshi open to Iowa gambling-law enforcement. Separately, Senate File 2470 (passed the Senate 45-1 in late March 2026; reported out of a House subcommittee by late April 2026, final disposition unconfirmed) would license and tax prediction markets rather than ban them: a 20% tax on adjusted revenue from Iowa users plus a 20% excise tax on each contract's purchase price, with an initial license fee reported as high as $20M after a floor amendment. Iowa's AG also joined a ~41-state multistate comment to the CFTC arguing prediction markets like Kalshi/Polymarket function as unregulated sportsbooks. | |||
| Kentucky | Contested | Kentucky has not issued a cease-and-desist letter, but has taken some of the most aggressive 2026 action against sports-event-contract platforms of any state. HB 757 (2026 Ky. Acts ch. 161, enacted via veto override 4/14/2026) made Kentucky the first state to impose an excise tax on prediction-market operators' transaction fees, set at 14.25% and taking effect January 1, 2027, while HB 904 (2026 Ky. Acts ch. 184) restricts KHRGC-licensed tracks and fantasy-contest licensees from contracting with event-contract platforms and states that the chapter does not itself authorize/legalize such regulation. The tax drew a lawsuit from the Kalshi/Polymarket-aligned Coalition for Fair Markets about a week before AG Russell Coleman sued Kalshi and Polymarket separately (June 17, 2026, Franklin Circuit Court) alleging unlicensed sports wagering; the CFTC then sued Kentucky (reported as the 9th state the CFTC has sued over this issue), challenging the tax and related restrictions as preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act. All litigation was pending as of Oct. 2026. Kentucky sits in the Sixth Circuit, which ruled against Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory on Sept. 25, 2026 in KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel (No. 26-5235, Tennessee) and KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler (No. 26-3196, Ohio) — Kentucky was not itself a party to either appeal, but that panel decision is binding Sixth Circuit precedent on the preemption question the CFTC's suit against Kentucky also raises. | |||
| Maryland | Contested | MLGCC sent cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Robinhood, and North American Derivatives Exchange/Crypto.com around April 2025, asserting their sports event contracts are 'indistinguishable' from sports bets requiring a state license. Kalshi sued roughly two weeks later in Maryland federal court, arguing CFTC/Commodity Exchange Act preemption and that it is a federally regulated 'designated contract market,' not a state-licensable sportsbook. On August 1, 2025, U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson denied Kalshi's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding Kalshi 'failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits' and reasoning state gambling law and the Commodity Exchange Act can operate 'in tandem' -- a split from preliminary-injunction wins Kalshi had obtained in Nevada and New Jersey. Kalshi appealed to the Fourth Circuit (No. 25-1892) and sought an injunction pending appeal; Maryland gave written assurance it would not enforce against Kalshi pending that appeal, after which Kalshi withdrew its injunction request. The panel (Judges Gregory, Thacker, Benjamin) heard oral argument May 7, 2026; no ruling had issued as of October 2026, so Maryland's non-enforcement arrangement with Kalshi remains in effect. The City of Baltimore separately sued Kalshi and Polymarket in Baltimore Circuit Court in August 2025 over sports event contracts. Maryland sits in the 4th Circuit (with WV, VA, NC, SC); of the circuits that have ruled, the 3rd Cir. (NJ, 2026-04-06) sided with Kalshi while the 9th and 6th Cir. ruled against it, but none of those rulings bind the 4th Circuit, which will decide independently.? | |||
| Massachusetts | Contested | AG Andrea Campbell sued KalshiEX LLC in Suffolk Superior Court (filed ~Sept. 2025) alleging it offers unlicensed sports wagering disguised as "event contracts," including to 18-20 year-olds below the state's 21+ sports-wagering age minimum. Judge Christopher Barry-Smith granted a preliminary injunction against Kalshi on Jan. 20, 2026; an appeals court stayed enforcement of that injunction in Feb. 2026 pending appeal, allowing Kalshi to keep operating while the case proceeds. Litigation ongoing as of Oct. 2026. | |||
| Michigan | Contested | MGCB filed comments with the CFTC in May 2025 arguing Kalshi's sports-event contracts violate Michigan law, without itself joining the states that sent cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi at that time. In March 2026, AG Dana Nessel sued Kalshi in Ingham County Circuit Court alleging violation of the Lawful Sports Betting Act; Kalshi's attempt to remove the case to federal court was denied on remand. On June 29, 2026 the Ingham County Circuit Court granted a temporary restraining order halting Kalshi from "engaging in or advertising its internet sports betting operation in Michigan" while the litigation continues; MGCB subsequently withdrew from the National Council on Problem Gambling over its Kalshi partnership (July 2026). On Sept. 1, 2026, Ingham County Circuit Judge Rosemarie Aquilina signed a preliminary injunction barring Kalshi from offering, clearing, settling or facilitating any contract that could be classified as online sports betting in Michigan, with a $500,000/day fine for geofencing violations; the injunction is expected to remain in effect until final judgment. Michigan sits in the 6th Circuit. On 2026-09-25 that circuit decided KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler (Ohio, No. 26-3196) together with KalshiEX v. Orgel (Tennessee, No. 26-5235), ruling against Kalshi on CEA-swap and preemption grounds; this is binding precedent in Michigan's circuit and supports the state court's injunction, though it is not itself a Michigan case. Consistent with 9th Cir. (NV, decided 2026-08-28, against Kalshi); contrasts with 3rd Cir. (NJ, decided 2026-04-06, for Kalshi). | |||
| Minnesota | Contested | Minnesota became the first state to enact a specific statutory ban on prediction markets: Gov. Walz signed a public-safety bill (House 100-32, Senate 57-9) on May 18, 2026 making it a felony to operate or promote a prediction-market platform offering event contracts (including sports-related contracts) to Minnesotans, effective Aug. 1, 2026. Kalshi, Polymarket and the CFTC sued on federal-preemption grounds; U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez (D. Minn.) issued a preliminary injunction on 2026-07-27 blocking enforcement against CFTC-registered designated contract markets, finding the ban likely preempted in many (not all) applications, days before the Aug. 1 effective date. The statutory ban remains on the books but is enjoined and not currently enforceable against the plaintiffs. Minnesota AG Keith Ellison maintains prediction markets are gambling and is continuing to defend the law; implied-preemption and First Amendment claims remain unresolved. Minnesota sits in the 8th Circuit, which has not yet ruled on prediction-market preemption; the 6th Cir. (KalshiEX v. Schuler/Orgel, decided 2026-09-25, against Kalshi), 9th Cir. (NV, decided 2026-08-28, against Kalshi) and 3rd Cir. (NJ, decided 2026-04-06, for Kalshi) splits do not bind Minnesota. | |||
| Missouri | Contested | AG Catherine Hanaway sent cease-and-desist letters September 18, 2026 to Kalshi, Polymarket, Crypto.com, Robinhood, Underdog, and Novig, asserting sports "event contracts" are unlicensed sports wagering under Amendment 2 and ordering operators to obtain an MGC license or stop offering sports contracts to Missourians within 30 days. Operators argue CFTC-regulated contracts are exclusively federally preempted. PrizePicks (not a letter recipient) suspended its Team Picks sports-contract product in Missouri. | |||
| Montana | Contested | Montana sits in the Ninth Circuit. The Gambling Control Division sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter around March 2025, and the parties agreed that April to pause enforcement pending related Nevada federal litigation. After that Nevada injunction was dissolved in November 2025, but before the Ninth Circuit ruled against Kalshi on the same federal-preemption question in KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2026), Montana's Division issued an order on April 6, 2026 finding Kalshi's event contracts illegal gambling and threatening criminal prosecution. Kalshi sued the Attorney General and Division officials in federal court, seeking a ruling that its contracts are federally preempted.? | |||
| Nevada | Contested | Nevada sits in the Ninth Circuit. Gaming Control Board sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter (March 2025); Kalshi sued and won a preliminary injunction (April 2025, Judge Andrew P. Gordon, D. Nev., docket 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW); Gordon dissolved the injunction (Nov. 2025); the Ninth Circuit affirmed in KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad, No. 25-7516 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2026), holding Kalshi's sports-event contracts are not CFTC-preempted swaps because the CEA's swap definition requires a nexus to a financial/economic/commercial consequence, not a sporting outcome -- so Nevada's gambling law is not preempted as to sports contracts -- and remanded the separate election-contracts preemption question to the district court. Board has since pursued a civil enforcement action in Carson City District Court; Kalshi could seek en banc or Supreme Court review, and the ruling directly conflicts with the Third Circuit's Kalshi-friendly New Jersey decision (2026-04-06), raising the odds of eventual Supreme Court review. | |||
| New Jersey | Contested | DGE sent cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi and Robinhood on March 27, 2025, alleging unauthorized sports wagering (citing NJ's constitutional ban on betting on in-state college teams/events). Kalshi sued in federal court; on April 28, 2025 Judge Edward Kiel enjoined DGE from enforcing against Kalshi's sports-related event contracts, holding the CEA gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction. DGE appealed; on April 6, 2026 a divided Third Circuit panel (2-1) affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding the CEA both field- and conflict-preempts NJ's gambling law as applied to Kalshi's sports-related event contracts and that those contracts are CFTC-regulated swaps. The ruling is preliminary; the case returns to the district court on the merits, and NJ was reported to be seeking Supreme Court review. New Jersey sits in the 3rd Circuit (with DE and PA); this 3rd Cir. panel decision is binding circuit precedent there pending any further review. Other states (NY, CT, RI and others) have brought parallel Kalshi/prediction-market actions raising the same CFTC-preemption defense, but those suits are in other circuits. | |||
| New Mexico | Contested | In May 2026 the Pueblos of Pojoaque, Sandia and Isleta and the Mescalero Apache Tribe sued Kalshi in federal court alleging its sports-event contracts enable unlicensed sports gambling on/affecting tribal gaming markets. In June 2026 (announced ~June 4) NM AG Raul Torrez sued Kalshi in the First Judicial District Court (Santa Fe), alleging Kalshi operates an unlicensed sportsbook outside the tribal-compact/state-licensing framework that is the state's only lawful path to gaming, and citing a 2025 survey finding 3.9% of NM adults screened positive for problem gambling (vs. ~1% nationally). Kalshi maintains it offers federally regulated event contracts, not gambling, and has not sought a NM sportsbook license. Polymarket separately sued AG Torrez and state gaming officials in federal court seeking to preempt similar enforcement against it. Neither New Mexico case has yet been ruled on. New Mexico sits in the Tenth Circuit, which (unlike the pro-Kalshi Third Circuit [NJ, Apr. 2026] or the anti-Kalshi Sixth Circuit [Sept. 2026] and Ninth Circuit [Nev., Aug. 2026]) had not itself ruled on Kalshi/CFTC-preemption exchange-trading litigation as of Oct. 2026 -- making New Mexico's own AG/tribal suits the most direct active litigation on point. | |||
| New York | Contested | The Gaming Commission issued a cease-and-desist position against Kalshi's sports-related event contracts (treating them as unlicensed sports wagering), and on July 31, 2026 Governor Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James announced New York had sued KalshiEX LLC, alleging Kalshi is running an illegal, unlicensed gambling operation under NY law and seeking forfeiture of illegal gains, consumer restitution, and penalties of three times Kalshi's illegal gains. Kalshi disputes state authority on CFTC-preemption grounds, as it has in other states' suits. New York sits in the 2nd Circuit (with Connecticut and Vermont); no 2nd Circuit ruling on prediction-market preemption binds New York, and the 3rd Circuit's ruling for Kalshi (New Jersey, decided April 2026) and the 6th Circuit's ruling against Kalshi (decided September 2026) were both decided in other circuits.? | |||
| Ohio | Contested | OCCC issued cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Robinhood and Crypto.com on Mar. 31, 2025, finding their sports event contracts meet Ohio's definition of sports gaming and require licensure; compliance deadline was Apr. 14, 2025. OCCC Executive Director Matthew Schuler sent a further letter on Oct. 6, 2025; Kalshi sued OCCC and AG Dave Yost in federal court (S.D. Ohio) around Oct. 7, 2025, seeking a TRO/injunction on Supremacy Clause (CFTC exclusivity) grounds; the district court denied a preliminary injunction. Ohio sits in the 6th Circuit. On 2026-09-25, a 6th Circuit panel decided KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler (No. 26-3196, Ohio) together with the companion Tennessee appeal KalshiEX v. Orgel (No. 26-5235), ruling against Kalshi: the panel held Kalshi had not shown its sports-event contracts are "swaps" under the Commodity Exchange Act, and that even if they were, Ohio's sports-gaming law would not be preempted; it affirmed the S.D. Ohio denial of Kalshi's preliminary injunction. OCCC can continue enforcement (including a separate ~$5M fine pursued against Kalshi) while the underlying case proceeds; status remains `contested` pending further district-court proceedings/appeal rather than `prohibited`, since no final merits judgment has issued. This ruling also creates binding 6th Circuit precedent against CEA preemption for other 6th Circuit states (incl. MI, KY, TN). Consistent with 9th Cir. (NV, decided 2026-08-28, against Kalshi); contrasts with 3rd Cir. (NJ, decided 2026-04-06, for Kalshi). | |||
| Rhode Island | Contested | Attorney General Peter Neronha filed suit against Kalshi and Polymarket on May 21, 2026 in Providence County Superior Court, alleging their sports-related "event contracts" constitute unlicensed "casino gaming" and "online sports wagering" under RI law, seeking a permanent injunction; the complaint also alleges RI's licensed sports-wagering handle fell 8% from 2024 to 2025, partly attributed to the platforms. Kalshi filed a competing federal suit against Rhode Island asserting exclusive CFTC/federal jurisdiction over its contracts, citing preliminary injunctions it won against New Jersey and against Tennessee officials. Rhode Island sits in the 1st Circuit (with Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts), which has not ruled on prediction-market preemption; the 3rd Circuit's ruling for Kalshi (in the New Jersey case) and the 6th and 9th Circuit rulings against Kalshi elsewhere do not bind Rhode Island.? | |||
| Tennessee | Contested | The Sports Wagering Council issued a January 2026 order naming Kalshi, Polymarket, and Nadex and directing them to cease offering sports-event contracts without an SWC license. Kalshi obtained a preliminary injunction from U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 2026) blocking enforcement. On September 25, 2026 the Sixth Circuit (KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel, No. 26-5235, decided together with the Ohio case KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, No. 26-3196; unanimous opinion by Senior Judge Julia Smith Gibbons) vacated the Tennessee injunction and remanded, holding Kalshi had not shown its sports event contracts meet the Commodity Exchange Act's "swap" definition (the link to economic consequences must be "intrinsic," not merely an indirect effect on leagues, sponsors or local businesses) and that the Act would not preempt Tennessee's sports-wagering law even if they were swaps. This is the second federal appellate ruling against Kalshi's preemption theory (after the Ninth Circuit, for Nevada, in Aug. 2026); the Third Circuit sided with Kalshi in a New Jersey case, and New Jersey petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on 9/2/2026 to resolve the circuit split (Kalshi's response due 11/9/2026). Separately, 2026 SB 1992 made it a Class E felony to attempt to influence a prediction-market event's outcome for financial gain (1-6 years, fines up to $3,000). The dispute remains unresolved: the Sixth Circuit sent the case back to the district court rather than finally deciding it, and litigation continues. | |||
| Utah | Contested | HB 243 (2026) added "proposition bet" ("a gambling bet on an individual action, statistic, occurrence, or non-occurrence") to the statutory definition of gambling, targeting CFTC-registered sports event contracts. Kalshi preemptively sued Utah officials in federal court (Feb. 2026) seeking to block enforcement on CFTC-preemption grounds; a federal judge ruled in August 2026 that Utah may enforce its gambling laws against Kalshi, though AG Derek Brown had not announced enforcement steps as of that ruling and Kalshi's contracts remained available to Utah users. The August 2026 ruling was itself the Utah federal district court, not the Tenth Circuit; the Tenth Circuit (unlike the pro-Kalshi Third Circuit [NJ, Apr. 2026] or the anti-Kalshi Sixth Circuit [Sept. 2026] and Ninth Circuit [Nev., Aug. 2026]) had not issued its own appellate ruling on Kalshi/CFTC-preemption litigation as of Oct. 2026. | |||
| Washington | Contested | WSGC guidance stated CFTC-regulated sports/event contracts are not authorized gambling activity in Washington. The WA Attorney General (Nick Brown) sued Kalshi in King County Superior Court in March 2026; a preliminary injunction issued July 2026 barred Kalshi from offering sports, political, and entertainment event contracts to Washington residents (threatened fines around $120,000/day) and required geofencing. A final order (Aug. 13, 2026) implementing that injunction requires Kalshi to cease offering wagers on sports, elections, politics, entertainment, culture, and tech/science to Washington residents, with an IP/residency-based geofence due Aug. 19, 2026 and a multi-source geofencing solution due Sept. 2, 2026; Kalshi sought a stay from the WA Court of Appeals. The Washington Indian Gaming Association supported the state's action; Kalshi has pursued counter-litigation against state regulators nationally, including arguments grounded in CFTC exclusive jurisdiction. Washington sits in the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against Kalshi on Aug. 28, 2026 in KalshiEX v. Assad (Nevada) on CFTC-preemption grounds; that ruling is consistent with (and supports) Washington's own state-court position, though Washington's case has proceeded independently on state-law (Gambling Act/Consumer Protection Act) grounds rather than relying on the Ninth Circuit ruling itself. Kalshi asked the Washington Court of Appeals to stay the final order; the court denied that request. | |||
| Wisconsin | Contested | AG Josh Kaul sued Kalshi, Robinhood, and Coinbase in Dane County Circuit Court on April 23, 2026, alleging their sports "event contracts" violate the commercial-gambling statute (Wis. Stat. § 945.03(1m)) and constitute a public nuisance, and seeking to bar sports contracts for Wisconsin-located customers. Defendants removed the case to federal court the next day (State of Wisconsin v. Kalshi, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-00378, W.D. Wis.). The CFTC separately sought to block the state suit on federal-preemption grounds; a federal judge denied the CFTC's request for a preliminary injunction in July 2026, finding Wisconsin's gambling statute likely applies. Separately, the Ho-Chunk Nation's own suit against Kalshi over online sports gambling in Wisconsin was allowed to proceed. As of October 2026, no court order stops Kalshi or Robinhood from offering sports-related contracts in Wisconsin.? | |||
| Alabama | Not authorized | Prediction-market platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket are available to Alabama residents under claimed federal preemption; the state has taken no cease-and-desist, lawsuit, or other action against them, and no statute authorizes them. Alabama sits in the 11th Circuit, which has not ruled on the CFTC-preemption question that other circuits are split on: the Third Circuit sided with Kalshi in a New Jersey case (April 2026), while the Ninth Circuit ruled against it in a Nevada case (August 2026). | |||
| Alaska | Not authorized | Kalshi, Polymarket and similar CFTC-registered event-contract platforms are available to Alaska residents under claimed federal preemption; the state has taken no cease-and-desist, lawsuit, or other action against them, unlike Arizona, Washington, Montana or Ohio. Alaska is in the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against Kalshi on CFTC-preemption grounds in a Nevada case on August 28, 2026, but no Alaska enforcement action has invoked that ruling. | |||
| Colorado | Not authorized | Colorado sits in the Tenth Circuit, which has not yet ruled on federal preemption for sports-event contracts. No Colorado statute authorizes this activity, and the state has not issued a cease-and-desist or brought an enforcement action, so CFTC-registered platforms such as Kalshi, Robinhood, Crypto.com and Polymarket operate in Colorado under claimed federal preemption. Colorado's Attorney General joined a multistate letter arguing the CFTC lacks authority to preempt state sports-wagering law, a policy position rather than a lawsuit. Other federal circuits have split on the preemption question: the Third Circuit sided with Kalshi in a New Jersey case in April 2026, while the Sixth and Ninth Circuits sided against Kalshi in September and August 2026. | |||
| Delaware | Not authorized | No DE-specific regulator statement, cease-and-desist, or litigation addresses CFTC-registered sports event contracts (Kalshi, Polymarket, etc.). Contracts are available to Delaware residents under claimed CFTC/federal preemption, with no DE regulator, AG, or court action against them, unlike several other states. Delaware sits in the 3rd Circuit (with NJ and PA); the 3rd Circuit's April 6, 2026 ruling for Kalshi on CFTC preemption in the New Jersey litigation is binding circuit precedent in Delaware, which would weigh against a future DE cease-and-desist to Kalshi surviving a preemption challenge on the same facts.? | |||
| District of Columbia | Not authorized | Kalshi and similar CFTC-registered event-contract platforms are available to DC residents under claimed CFTC/federal preemption; no DC regulator, Attorney General, or court has taken action against them, unlike several states that have issued cease-and-desist letters or sued. Absent such action, the activity would otherwise fall under DC's general gambling-device prohibition (D.C. Code § 22-1704). DC sits in the D.C. Circuit, which has not ruled on prediction-market preemption; the 3rd Circuit's 2026 ruling for Kalshi (New Jersey) and the 6th/9th Circuit rulings against Kalshi do not bind the District of Columbia.? | |||
| Florida | Not authorized | Florida has taken no cease-and-desist letter, Attorney General lawsuit, or other formal regulatory action against CFTC-registered event-contract platforms such as Kalshi or Polymarket, in contrast to the Gaming Control Commission's active enforcement against offshore sportsbooks (Bovada, MyBookie, BetUS) and sweepstakes casinos. The Commission's executive director has stated publicly that the Seminole Tribe's Hard Rock Bet is the only lawful online sportsbook operator in Florida, a position that would extend to prediction markets offering sports-outcome contracts under the compact's exclusivity and the state's general gambling prohibition even without a platform-specific enforcement action. Florida sits in the 11th Circuit, which has not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory as of October 2026. | |||
| Georgia | Not authorized | Georgia has taken no enforcement action, lawsuit, or legislation specifically addressing CFTC-registered event-contract platforms such as Kalshi or Polymarket. No statute authorizes them, so they fall under Georgia's general gambling prohibition (O.C.G.A. §§ 16-12-21, 16-12-22). Georgia sits in the 11th Circuit, which has not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory as of October 2026. | |||
| Hawaii | Not authorized | CFTC-registered event contracts (Kalshi and others) are offered in Hawaii under claimed federal preemption; Hawaii has taken no enforcement action, filed no suit and enacted no authorization as of 2026-10-10. Under the national prediction-markets rule, the generic exclusion in HRS §712-1220 for "bona fide business transactions ... for the purchase or sale at a future date of securities or commodities" does not count as state authorization; whether event contracts fall within it is untested. HB 2198 (2026), which would classify prediction-market wagers as illegal gambling, cleared the House Commerce & Consumer Protection Committee in February 2026 but did not pass the Senate (see legislation.pending_summary). Hawaii is in the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against Kalshi on preemption in the Nevada case (KalshiEX v. Assad, 2026-08-28). | |||
| Idaho | Not authorized | Kalshi and similar CFTC-registered event-contract platforms are reportedly accessible to Idaho residents statewide under claimed federal preemption, and the state has taken no enforcement action against them as of October 2026. Idaho's attorney general joined a 2025 multistate letter asking the CFTC to recognize state jurisdiction over sports-related event contracts, a policy position directed at the federal regulator rather than action against the platforms themselves. Idaho sits in the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against Kalshi in a Nevada enforcement case (KalshiEX LLC v. Assad, Aug. 28, 2026) -- the opposite result from the Third Circuit's pro-Kalshi ruling in New Jersey (Apr. 2026) -- though that Nevada case does not itself constitute Idaho state action. | |||
| Indiana | Not authorized | No Indiana statute authorizes or licenses event-contract trading. As of a May 2026 Indiana Public Broadcasting report, Indiana Gaming Commission officials said prediction markets (e.g., Kalshi) fall under federal CFTC jurisdiction and the IGC has no oversight authority; the Commission has issued no cease-and-desist order. Indiana AG Todd Rokita joined a 44-state AG coalition letter asking the CFTC to disclaim exclusive jurisdiction over sports event contracts and leave regulation to the states, but that is a policy position directed at a federal regulator, not a cease-and-desist, lawsuit, injunction, or ruling against the platforms; Indiana itself has taken no enforcement action, contrasting with Nevada, Illinois, Connecticut, New York, Ohio, and others that sent C&Ds. Contracts remain available to Indiana residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption. | |||
| Kansas | Not authorized | No Kansas statute authorizes prediction-market event contracts, so the activity is not authorized, notwithstanding that platforms remain accessible to Kansas customers. The Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission has taken no enforcement action: KRGC enforcement attorney James Bain told Sports Betting Dime (reported June 16, 2026) the commission is "not planning on sending cease-and-desist letters to prediction market platforms" at this time and is instead watching the outcome of the Kalshi litigation in Nevada and New Jersey before deciding. No Kansas AG opinion or court filing addresses the issue. Kansas sits in the 10th Circuit, which has not ruled on CEA preemption of state gambling/sports-wagering law; compare the 3rd Circuit (NJ, April 6, 2026, for Kalshi), 6th Circuit (OH/TN, September 25, 2026, against Kalshi), and 9th Circuit (NV, August 28, 2026, against Kalshi). | |||
| Louisiana | Not authorized | Prediction-market platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket are available to Louisiana residents statewide under the operators' claimed federal (CFTC) preemption from state gambling law; the state has taken no confirmed enforcement action, lawsuit, or ruling against them. Louisiana is in the Fifth Circuit, which has not ruled on the CFTC-preemption question as of October 2026 (the Third Circuit has let Kalshi continue operating in New Jersey; the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have ruled against Kalshi).? | |||
| Maine | Not authorized | CFTC-registered sports event-contract platforms (Kalshi, Polymarket) are available to Maine residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption. No Maine regulator, Attorney General, or court has taken action against them, unlike the cease-and-desist and litigation wave several other states (Massachusetts, New York, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, and others) pursued in 2025-2026. Maine sits in the 1st Circuit (with Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), which has not yet ruled on prediction-market preemption, so neither the 3rd Circuit's ruling for Kalshi (New Jersey, 2026-04-06) nor the 6th Circuit's ruling against it (2026-09-25) binds Maine.? | |||
| Mississippi | Not authorized | No Mississippi Gaming Commission cease-and-desist letter, lawsuit, or other enforcement action against a specific CFTC-registered event-contract platform (e.g., Kalshi, Polymarket) has been identified, so prediction-market contracts remain available to Mississippi residents statewide under the platforms' claimed CFTC/federal preemption. The state's response so far has stayed at the policy level: Attorney General Lynn Fitch joined a multistate coalition letter (May 4, 2026) urging federal regulators to return control of mobile sports betting to the states, calling prediction markets "entertainment-based gambling rather than tools for financial risk management." Mississippi sits in the Fifth Circuit, which had not ruled on the CFTC-preemption question as of October 2026. | |||
| Nebraska | Not authorized | Prediction-market contracts (Kalshi and similar CFTC-registered platforms) are available to Nebraska residents statewide under claimed federal preemption. No Nebraska regulator, attorney general, or court has taken action against them as of October 2026, and the state sits in the 8th Circuit, which has not ruled on whether federal law preempts state gambling law for these contracts. | |||
| New Hampshire | Not authorized | Prediction-market contracts (Kalshi, Polymarket, and similar CFTC-registered platforms) are available to New Hampshire residents statewide under claimed federal preemption, with no New Hampshire regulator, attorney general, or court action against them as of October 2026; absent such action, the activity would otherwise fall under RSA 647:2's general gambling prohibition. New Hampshire sits in the 1st Circuit (with Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island), which has not ruled on prediction-market preemption, so no binding circuit precedent applies here; rulings for and against Kalshi in the 3rd, 6th, and 9th Circuits do not bind New Hampshire. | |||
| North Carolina | Not authorized | CFTC-registered event contracts on sports (Kalshi, Polymarket-style platforms) are available to North Carolina residents statewide under claimed federal preemption; no North Carolina regulator, Attorney General, or court has acted against or for them as of October 2026, despite a wave of such actions in other states since 2025. Absent state action, the activity would otherwise fall under North Carolina's general gambling statute (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ch. 14, Art. 37). North Carolina sits in the Fourth Circuit, which has not ruled on the federal-preemption question; neither the Sixth Circuit's Sept. 25, 2026 ruling against Kalshi nor the Third Circuit's pro-Kalshi ruling (New Jersey, Apr. 6, 2026) binds North Carolina directly. | |||
| North Dakota | Not authorized | Prediction-market contracts (Kalshi and similar CFTC-registered platforms) are available to North Dakota residents statewide under claimed federal preemption. No North Dakota regulator, attorney general, or court has taken action against them as of October 2026, and the state sits in the 8th Circuit, which has not ruled on whether federal law preempts state gambling law for these contracts. | |||
| Oklahoma | Not authorized | CFTC-registered event-contract platforms such as Kalshi are available to Oklahoma residents statewide under claimed federal preemption; no Oklahoma regulator, attorney general, or court has taken action against them, unlike Arizona, Ohio, Massachusetts and Nevada, which have. Oklahoma sits in the 10th Circuit, which has not ruled on the CFTC-preemption question.? | |||
| Oregon | Not authorized | A federal class action filed in Oregon in February 2026 accuses Kalshi of running an 'illegal online gambling enterprise' in violation of Oregon's prohibition on non-state-run gambling, seeking double damages under the state's loss-recovery statute. That suit is a private plaintiff action, not a state regulator, AG, or court acting against the platforms, and no ruling has issued in it; no Oregon regulator, AG, or legislative action against event-contract platforms has occurred. Contracts remain available to Oregon residents statewide under claimed federal preemption. Oregon sits in the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against Kalshi on CFTC-preemption grounds on Aug. 28, 2026 in KalshiEX v. Assad, a case arising from Nevada's enforcement; that ruling is binding Ninth Circuit precedent. | |||
| Pennsylvania | Not authorized | Kalshi, Polymarket and similar CFTC-registered prediction-market platforms are available to Pennsylvania residents statewide under claimed federal preemption; the state has not sued, sent a cease-and-desist letter, or obtained any ruling against them. The Gaming Control Board has instead lobbied Congress and the CFTC (an October 2025 letter from Executive Director Kevin O'Toole) to have sports event contracts brought back under state gambling oversight. A pending bill, HB 2711, would regulate rather than ban these contracts.? | |||
| South Carolina | Not authorized | No South Carolina-specific enforcement action, lawsuit, or cease-and-desist against CFTC-registered event-contract platforms (Kalshi, Polymarket, etc.) was identified as of October 2026, unlike the multistate actions in Ohio, Tennessee, Connecticut and elsewhere. Sports-outcome event contracts would likely fall within the general prohibition on betting and bookmaking (§16-19-130) if challenged, but this is untested in South Carolina. South Carolina sits in the Fourth Circuit, which has not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory as of Oct. 2026. | |||
| South Dakota | Not authorized | Kalshi and similar CFTC-registered event-contract platforms are available to South Dakota residents statewide under claimed federal preemption, with no South Dakota cease-and-desist letter, lawsuit, or ruling of its own. South Dakota joined a roughly 37-state attorneys general amicus brief backing Ohio's enforcement position, which the 6th Circuit upheld against Kalshi on Sept. 25, 2026 (KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler; KalshiEX v. Orgel), but that ruling binds only the 6th Circuit's states and does not bind South Dakota, which sits in the 8th Circuit. The Deadwood Gaming Association has publicly opposed prediction markets as unlicensed, untaxed competition with Deadwood's regulated sports wagering, but that is industry advocacy, not state action.? | |||
| Texas | Not authorized | Kalshi and similar CFTC-registered event-contract platforms offer sports and election contracts to Texas residents statewide on the theory that federal CFTC jurisdiction preempts state gambling law. Neither the Texas Racing Commission nor the Attorney General has sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter, sued it, or ruled against it, unlike Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Connecticut, and Tennessee, which have all sent cease-and-desist letters or sued. Texas sits in the Fifth Circuit, which had not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory as of October 2026. | |||
| Vermont | Not authorized | CFTC-registered event-contract platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket are available to Vermont residents statewide under claimed federal preemption from CFTC regulation. Vermont has taken no regulatory, enforcement, or court action for or against these platforms. The state falls within the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (with New York and Connecticut), which has not ruled on whether federal law preempts state regulation of these contracts; rulings in other circuits do not bind Vermont.? | |||
| Virginia | Not authorized | CFTC-registered event-contract platforms (Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, Crypto.com) are available to Virginia residents statewide, offered under claimed federal CFTC preemption rather than any Virginia license. No Virginia regulator, attorney general, or court has taken action for or against them, unlike the cease-and-desist letters, lawsuits, and injunctions several other states have brought against Kalshi and Polymarket (including Nevada, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, Montana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Arizona). Virginia sits in the Fourth Circuit (with Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina); that circuit had not ruled on Kalshi's appeal of its Maryland district-court loss (No. 25-1892, argued May 7, 2026) as of October 2026, so no binding circuit precedent applies in Virginia yet. A 2026 Third Circuit ruling favoring Kalshi (New Jersey) and 2026 Sixth and Ninth Circuit rulings against Kalshi do not bind Virginia.? | |||
| West Virginia | Not authorized | CFTC-registered sports event contracts (Kalshi, Polymarket, etc.) are available to West Virginia residents statewide under claimed federal preemption; no West Virginia regulator, Attorney General, or court has acted for or against them as of October 2026, and no statute or rule specifically authorizes or bans them. Wagering generally requires statutory authorization in West Virginia, so these contracts operate in an unresolved gap between state gambling law and the operators' federal-preemption claim. West Virginia sits in the 4th Circuit (with MD, VA, NC, SC), which has not yet ruled on Kalshi's appeal of its Maryland district-court loss (No. 25-1892, argued May 7, 2026); rulings from the 3rd, 6th, and 9th Circuits do not bind West Virginia.? | |||
| Wyoming | Not authorized | Kalshi and similar platforms operate in Wyoming under a claimed federal exemption from state gambling law, with no cease-and-desist letter or other enforcement action by the state as of October 2026, unlike Montana, Nevada, Arizona, or Massachusetts. Wyoming has no state-specific prediction-markets law of its own. It sits in the Tenth Circuit, which had not ruled on the underlying federal preemption question as of Oct. 2026, unlike the Third Circuit (ruling for the platforms in a New Jersey case, Apr. 2026) and the Sixth and Ninth Circuits (ruling against them, Sept. 2026 and Aug. 2026).? |