According to West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, who spoke at the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States’ summer meeting, the Supreme Court will weigh in on the controversial field of sports event prediction markets sometime in 2027. Other attorneys general and state officials also seem to agree with McCuskey’s predictions.
US Supreme Court to Rule on Prediction Markets in 2027, Attorneys General Say
The comments provide one of the clearest public indications yet from state officials of the expected timeline for litigation over sports event prediction markets. This comes on the heels of a bipartisan coalition of 41 attorneys general, who in May urged the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to clarify who actually regulates prediction markets.
The central issue is whether federally regulated event contracts listed on CFTC-regulated exchanges can be offered nationwide despite state gambling laws. Companies such as Kalshi argue that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts state gaming laws. In contrast, states maintain that sports event contracts constitute gambling and are therefore subject to licensing, taxation, and consumer protection requirements, all of which are implemented by state regulators.
What Else Did Officials Say at the Meeting?
Nevada Gaming Control Board Chairman Mike Dreitzer told attendees earlier in the meeting that the state is not opposed to innovation but believes prediction-style wagering products should operate within existing gaming regulations. He also warned that, if left unchecked, sports event contracts could eventually pave the way for nationwide online casino-style products beyond sports.
The NGCB has been one of the leading organizations opposing the seemingly unregulated expansion of prediction market operators. Last month, for example, the NGCB asked a court to hold Kalshi in contempt, alleging the operator did not follow a May 18 order to stop sports betting in the state.
McCuskey echoed those concerns, arguing that prediction market operators compete with sportsbooks without being subject to the extensive licensing, taxation, and regulatory oversight required of traditional gaming operators. According to him, there’s a certain “unfairness” in it, as traditional operators have had to go through a difficult regulatory process in order to be able to offer their products. Meanwhile, prediction market platforms simply bypass this.
McCuskey also shed light on the potential dangers for users. He claimed that consumers often have difficulty distinguishing between regulated sportsbooks and prediction market platforms because the products look similar even though they operate under different legal frameworks.
Finally, McCuskey claimed that attorneys general have become the primary leaders on the latest major national legal dispute, as actions by the Supreme Court are still a long way ahead.