IAGR and NAGRA file amicus brief in New Jersey's Kalshi Supreme Court case
The two regulator associations filed an amicus brief on 2 October in New Jersey's Kalshi case; states won in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits.
By Iris Calder, Payments and technology editor
- IAGR and NAGRA filed a joint amicus brief in Flaherty v. KalshiEX at the US Supreme Court on 2 October.
- States prevailed at the Sixth and Ninth Circuits.
- New Jersey's petition was filed on 2 September and docketed on 8 September as No. 26-299.
- On 22 September, NCLGS, a group of state lawmakers, filed the first amicus brief backing the petition.
On 2 October, the North American Gaming Regulators Association (NAGRA) and the International Association of Gaming Regulators (IAGR) jointly submitted an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court in New Jersey's challenge to Kalshi's sports event contracts.
What happened
The brief was filed in Flaherty v. KalshiEX, docketed as No. 26-299. In it, the two associations side with the petitioners and with the reading taken by the Sixth and Ninth Circuits.
According to the brief, New Jersey's petition for certiorari was filed on 2 September and docketed on 8 September. On 22 September, NCLGS, a group of state lawmakers focused on gaming, filed the first supporting amicus brief.
The appellate positions, as described in the filings and in SBC Americas' report:
- Ninth Circuit: in August, it held that Nevada's gaming laws apply to the contracts.
- Sixth Circuit: in September, it allowed Ohio and Tennessee to apply their gambling laws to the contracts. It also said federal commodities law would not displace those state laws even if the contracts were classed as swaps.
Appeals are also pending in Maryland's case at the Fourth Circuit, argued in May, and in New York's case at the Second Circuit. Kalshi has not filed a petition of its own; it has instead asked the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the Nevada case.
Why it matters
Operators offering or competing with sports event contracts could need to check which circuit's ruling governs each state where they are active.
The filings also point to possible competitive exposure for licensed operators. NCLGS argued that if Kalshi's activity were deemed beyond state regulation, casinos, pari-mutuel operators and other heavily regulated entities are certain to amend their business and products to seek the same status. That is the lawmakers' argument, not a finding. Licensed sportsbooks could face compliance and competitive questions if the Third Circuit approach spread.
The tribal angle could matter in markets such as Michigan and Maine, which, according to the brief, reserve all or part of their mobile market for tribes.
The associations argue that further circuit decisions will not bring uniformity, so the uncertainty is likely to last until the Court acts or declines to act.
What's next
New Jersey's petition is pending, and decisions are awaited from the Fourth and Second Circuits.
Sources
- 1.Supreme Court of the United States · supremecourt.gov (supremecourt.gov), accessed 7 Oct 2026Primary
- 2.Supreme Court of the United States · supremecourt.gov (supremecourt.gov), accessed 7 Oct 2026Primary
- 3.Kalshi case draws worldwide gaming regulators to push Supreme Court · SBC Americas (sbcamericas.com), accessed 7 Oct 2026
Spotted an error? Read our corrections policy or contact the desk.
