US: Utah and CFTC Set for Key Prediction Markets Hearing
United States – 10 November 2026 – www.zonadeazar.comThe regulatory confrontation between Utah and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) will enter a new legal phase on 20 November 2026, when a federal court considers the agency’s request to temporarily prevent state authorities from enforcing gambling laws against prediction-market activities.
The dispute represents one of the most significant conflicts surrounding federal and state jurisdiction over sports-related event contracts.
Expedited Court Schedule
US District Judge Robert J. Shelby has established an expedited timetable to consider the CFTC’s request for preliminary relief.
During a court conference on 6 November, Shelby ordered Utah to file its motion to dismiss by 10 November and respond to the CFTC’s request for emergency relief by 11 November.
Additional legal submissions are scheduled between 16 and 19 November, ahead of the hearing on 20 November.
The accelerated process reflects the urgency of determining which authorities have jurisdiction over these financial instruments.
Kalshi Faces Criminal Charges in Utah
The dispute intensified after Utah filed criminal charges against Kalshi and its co-founders, Tarek Mansour and Luana Lopes Lara, in October.
State authorities maintain that certain sports-related event contracts offered by the platform constitute illegal gambling under local legislation.
Judge Shelby previously ruled against Kalshi in separate proceedings concerning Utah’s authority to regulate these contracts.
That ruling represented a significant development for state regulators seeking to enforce their gambling laws against prediction-market operators.
CFTC Defends Federal Jurisdiction
The CFTC maintains that certain event contracts traded on federally regulated platforms fall under its exclusive jurisdiction.
Under this interpretation, state authorities should not apply local gambling restrictions to products classified as financial derivatives under federal law.
Utah, meanwhile, argues that it retains the authority to regulate activities considered illegal sports betting within its territory.
The dispute raises important questions regarding the relationship between federal commodities legislation and states’ traditional gambling regulatory powers.
Susquehanna Challenges Gambling Allegations
In related proceedings, Susquehanna has opposed Utah’s request for preliminary relief in litigation involving Kalshi and two market makers.
The company argues that its activities should not be classified as gambling operations because its role involves providing liquidity through buy and sell orders.
According to its legal position, market makers neither establish betting odds nor accept customer wagers.
Susquehanna also maintains that its operations are independent of Kalshi, although both companies share legal representation in the proceedings.
States Defend Their Regulatory Authority
The dispute comes amid growing opposition from state governments to the expansion of sports prediction markets.
On 6 November, 37 states, the District of Columbia and the Northern Mariana Islands submitted an amicus brief supporting New York in its legal battle against Kalshi.
A separate filing supporting Wisconsin in litigation involving the CFTC received backing from 38 states.
State governments argue that the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act did not eliminate their traditional authority to regulate gambling.
The American Gaming Association (AGA) and former CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler have also submitted arguments supporting state regulatory powers.
Next Steps and Regulatory Impact
The hearing scheduled for 20 November could become a significant moment in determining the boundaries of the CFTC’s jurisdiction and Utah’s gambling enforcement powers.
Although a ruling on preliminary relief would not necessarily resolve the underlying legal dispute, it could influence other proceedings involving Kalshi and prediction-market operators.
The outcome will be particularly relevant for companies offering sports event contracts under federal supervision while seeking to avoid restrictions imposed by state gambling legislation.
Edited by: Cristobal R.
