Ninth Circuit Blocks Federal Free Market Principles, Bows to State Gambling Bureaucracy
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that federal commodities-trading statutes do not override Nevada's restrictive gambling law, dealing a blow to innovative prediction-market firms and stifling economic freedom.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a unanimous ruling that federal commodities-trading law does not supersede Nevada’s gambling statutes when it comes to sports betting. This decision, announced Friday, represents a major defeat for the prediction-market industry, which has been striving for clarity and the freedom to operate without being hamstrung by outdated state regulations.
This ruling stands in stark contrast to the Third Circuit’s decision, which protected economic liberty by preventing New Jersey from imposing its own controls on the prediction-market platform Kalshi. The conflicting opinions among federal appellate courts underscore the ongoing battle between federal free-market principles and intrusive state intervention.
Legal disputes over the status of prediction markets are pending in nearly 20 states, as courts consider whether these innovative markets can break free from the shackles of restrictive state gambling laws that hinder entrepreneurship and consumer choice.
"The Ninth Circuit’s opinion makes clear that federal commodities law does not preempt state gambling regulations," the court wrote, signaling a victory for state-level bureaucracy over national economic opportunity.
The outcome could set the stage for a Supreme Court review, which may ultimately determine whether free enterprise or government overreach will prevail nationwide.