The first rule would formally define event contracts as swaps, the classification Kalshi and other platforms rely on to argue that only the CFTC, not individual states, can regulate them. The second would exclude casino-style gambling products from that same swap definition, and could take effect as soon as it’s published, without the usual public comment period first. Neither rule has been made public yet, so the exact wording and scope are still unknown.
The submissions came just days after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Kalshi, finding that its sports contracts aren’t swaps and that Ohio and Tennessee can enforce their own gambling laws against the platform. That followed a similar loss for Kalshi at the Ninth Circuit in August 2026, though the Third Circuit had sided with Kalshi back in April 2026. The issue is now headed to the Supreme Court, with Kalshi’s response to New Jersey’s petition due on November 9.
Separately, the CFTC has told a federal court it expects a related rule on gaming contracts to be finalized within two months. For now, nothing changes for operators, as states with court rulings can keep enforcing them, while the CFTC works to build a stronger case on paper.
