A Federal Judge Blocked the First State Law Criminalizing Prediction Markets, 4 Days Before It Took Effect

What Happened

A federal judge on Monday, July 27 blocked Minnesota from enforcing the first state law in the country to criminalize prediction markets, 4 days before it was scheduled to take effect. US District Judge Katherine Menendez of the District of Minnesota granted a preliminary injunction against the statute, which Governor Tim Walz signed on May 18 and which made operating or advertising a prediction market a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, starting August 1.

The order forbids enforcement against platforms registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as designated contract markets (DCMs), the license class that covers both Kalshi and Polymarket's US exchange, while the case proceeds to the merits.

The posture of the case is as notable as the outcome. The CFTC itself filed the lawsuit against Minnesota on May 19, the day after the ban was signed, arguing that the federal Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) preempts state attempts to prohibit trading on exchanges the agency supervises; Kalshi and Polymarket joined the challenge.

Menendez ruled that the plaintiffs 'have met their burden to show they are likely to succeed, at least in part,' and that they faced irreparable harm if the felony ban took effect. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said the state 'respectfully disagrees' with the ruling, called the platforms 'predatory gambling,' and confirmed Minnesota will continue defending the law.

The federal license was supposed to answer who decides. 3 courtrooms gave 3 different answers in a month, and the map itself is now the risk.

3 Courtrooms, 3 Answers, 1 Month

Monday's ruling would read as a clean win for the platforms if it stood alone. It does not. On July 7, US District Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York denied Kalshi's request for a preliminary injunction against New York regulators in KalshiEX LLC v. Williams, holding that the CEA likely does not preempt New York's gambling law under any of the 3 available theories (express, field, or conflict preemption).

Kalshi appealed the same day and filed an emergency motion with the 2nd Circuit on July 23; New York has reportedly agreed to withhold enforcement only through July 30. And on July 20, a Washington state court granted the state attorney general a preliminary injunction against Kalshi's sports contracts, finding they likely violate the Washington Gambling Act, according to legal-industry reporting.

That is 3 courtrooms reaching materially different answers inside 1 month, on the same underlying question: when Congress gave the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over futures and swaps, did it take the subject away from the states? The split is not academic. The same federal license that failed to protect Kalshi in Manhattan and in Washington state just protected it in Minneapolis.

Add the international layer this site covered 9 days ago (see 'France Orders Every ISP to Block Polymarket After Its Transaction Ban Failed') and the picture is a market whose legal status depends almost entirely on which jurisdiction the question is asked in. Contested preemption maps of this shape tend to resolve in appellate courts first, and plausibly the Supreme Court after that.

The Swap Test Means the Federal Shield Covers Products, Not Platforms

The most consequential part of Menendez's order may be its limits. She wrote that Minnesota's law 'may not, ultimately, be preempted in all respects,' even as applied to Kalshi and Polymarket, because preemption turns on whether each individual contract qualifies as a swap under the CEA.

Contracts on events with 'clear potential economic, financial, or commercial consequences' clear that bar: her examples included markets on Senate races, the World Cup winner, and whether the Strait of Hormuz reopens (a market whose economic consequence needs no explaining to readers of this site's Hormuz coverage).

Markets on reality-show outcomes like Love Island USA, or on what announcers say during a match, likely do not.

Read structurally, that is a swap-by-swap sorting rule, and it cuts against the platforms' preferred framing of a single federal perimeter. The shield attaches to products, not to platforms, which means an exchange's legal exposure in a hostile state is a function of its catalog.

Every entertainment prop a platform lists to drive volume becomes a foothold for a state gambling regulator, while the hedging-grade contracts (elections, commodities, geopolitical events) are the ones that keep the federal umbrella overhead. The states' side of the argument deserves its weight here: consumer-protection and gambling-addiction concerns sit at the historical core of state police powers, Torres found them untouched by the CEA in New York, and Menendez's injunction is preliminary, not a merits ruling.

The platforms have won a pause, not the war.

What This Means for You

If you trade on Kalshi, Polymarket, or any prediction market, the practical fact is that these are custodial, KYC-verified platforms (know-your-customer identity checks tied to your legal jurisdiction), and your account is a jurisdictional contact point. Whether you can deposit, trade, or even reach the site can now change with a single ruling, and the map is moving monthly: France ordered its internet providers to block Polymarket this month, New York's forbearance reportedly runs only through July 30, Washington has an injunction against sports contracts, and Minnesota's ban is paused but alive on appeal.

Funds sitting on a platform through one of these transitions carry custodial risk that has nothing to do with market risk.

The proportionate posture: keep balances on prediction platforms at working size rather than savings size, withdraw settled positions promptly instead of letting them accumulate, and know which of your markets sit on the hedging-grade side of the swap test versus the entertainment side, because the latter category is where state enforcement now has a court-endorsed foothold. Export your trade records periodically; a platform forced offline in your state by an enforcement action is a bad time to reconstruct a cost basis.

The structural lesson runs in the usual direction. Every fight in this story is about an account: who may open one, in which state, holding which products. Bitcoin held in self-custody, with private keys you control, is the asset in this ecosystem that does not resolve to an account anyone can adjudicate.

That does not make prediction markets bad tools (this site treats them as useful signal generators), but it is the reason legal-status volatility is a risk parameter for platform balances and not for self-custodied holdings.

What to Watch

Watch the 2nd Circuit first: Kalshi's emergency motion is pending and New York's reported forbearance expires July 30, so the next material ruling is likely days away. Watch whether Minnesota appeals the injunction to the 8th Circuit, and whether the CFTC (an agency currently litigating on the industry's side) files parallel preemption suits against other states.

Watch platform catalogs for quiet delistings of entertainment props, the clearest tell that legal teams are internalizing the swap test. And watch for the first appellate opinion squarely deciding CEA preemption of state gambling law; a genuine circuit split puts this question on a Supreme Court trajectory, based on the documented pattern of how these conflicts travel.

Tracked entities this report names, with total coverage across the archive. Follow one into the Actor Network to see every report it appears in.

Other reports that name the same tracked actors — a different thread than “related,” which follows wording. These are linked by who appears in them.