BOISE, Idaho (CBS2) — Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador has joined a 39-state coalition challenging what it calls a federal try to take management of sports betting regulation away from states.
The coalition is pushing again towards the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which it says is claiming authority over sports betting based mostly on legal guidelines handed about 15 years in the past to manage Wall Street after the 2008 monetary disaster. The CFTC’s place, the coalition argues, would enable it to override state playing legal guidelines nationwide.
In January 2025, on-line platforms Kalshi and Crypto.com started providing what they known as “events contracts” on federally regulated futures exchanges. Users may guess on sport scores, participant efficiency, and different sports outcomes. The platforms marketed the exercise as sports betting, and the general public used it that manner. Kalshi reported greater than $1 billion in Super Bowl bets alone in February 2026.
For roughly a yr, the CFTC declined to endorse the legality of the contracts. In September 2025, the fee issued an advisory warning the platforms it had by no means accepted such contracts and cautioned them that state legislation may end result within the termination of their sports betting merchandise if states selected to.
Under new management in late 2025, the CFTC reversed course. When Nevada sued the platforms to implement its playing legal guidelines, the CFTC filed a quick siding with the platforms. The CFTC now argues the contracts qualify as monetary devices known as “swaps,” and that federal legislation provides the company unique jurisdiction, stopping states from regulating the exercise.
“States like Idaho that choose to ban sports betting would be prevented from enforcing those bans under the CFTC’s theory,” Labrador mentioned. “An unelected federal agency claims it discovered hidden authority in fifteen-year-old financial reform laws to override state gambling laws nationwide. Congress never granted that power, and Idaho will continue defending our right to regulate gambling as we see fit.”
The coalition’s amicus temporary lays out 4 fundamental arguments. It says federal companies don’t have any particular authority when deciphering the scope of their very own jurisdiction, significantly when claiming new powers. It additionally argues that Supreme Court precedent requires clear congressional authorization for broad claims of federal company authority over main points, and that Congress by no means clearly licensed the CFTC to manage sports betting when it granted authority over Wall Street swaps.
The temporary additional argues that when Congress intends to shift conventional state powers to federal management, it should communicate clearly, and that playing regulation has lengthy been a core state perform. It additionally says the CFTC has beforehand acknowledged it lacks experience in playing regulation and has no clear statutory mandate to manage it, whereas states have in depth expertise with age limits, dependancy packages, and client protections.
The coalition additionally factors to how sports betting is regulated on the state stage. It says the CFTC permits platforms to self-certify their contracts with no pre-approval and has no gambling-specific rules. States which have legalized sports betting impose licensing necessities, background checks, age verification, accountable playing packages and integrity monitoring. States that ban sports betting, the coalition argues, could be unable to implement these bans if the CFTC’s place prevails.
The case is being reviewed by the Ninth Circuit in consolidated circumstances involving Nevada’s enforcement of its playing legal guidelines towards prediction market platforms. The coalition’s temporary helps Nevada’s place that states retain authority to manage playing no matter how platforms rebrand it.