Gensler Supports State Control Over Prediction Market Regulation – Former SEC and CFTC Chair Gary Gensler filed an amicus brief late Thursday with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. He asserted that Congress did not intend to provide the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) exclusive federal oversight over sports betting.
What Happened
Gary Gensler, the former chairman of both the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), officially filed an amicus brief. This brief was submitted to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, according to Decrypt. Gensler’s filing addresses the regulatory framework for prediction markets and their relationship with state authority.
In his brief, Gensler explicitly stated that Congress did not “categorically” intend to transfer exclusive federal oversight of nationwide sports betting to the CFTC, as reported by Decrypt. This position indicates a stance supporting state-level jurisdiction over certain aspects of prediction markets, specifically those related to sports betting, rather than a blanket federal preemption.
Key Details
- Former chair of both the SEC and CFTC, Gary Gensler, filed an amicus brief with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Decrypt).
- The brief was filed late Thursday (Decrypt).
- Gensler argued that Congress did not intend for the CFTC to have exclusive federal oversight over nationwide sports betting (Decrypt, John Lothian News).
- His position suggests that prediction markets do not overrule state regulations, particularly concerning sports betting, according to Coindesk.
- Gensler reportedly affirmed that “sports bets aren’t swaps,” contradicting claims by entities like Kalshi (John Lothian News).
Why It Matters
The intervention by a former SEC and CFTC chair in the debate over prediction market regulation carries significant weight for B2B operators, regulators, and industry analysts. Gensler’s assertion that Congress did not grant the CFTC exclusive federal jurisdiction over sports betting directly challenges a potential federal overreach narrative, suggesting that state regulatory frameworks retain relevance. This position could influence ongoing discussions and legal interpretations regarding the classification and oversight of prediction markets, particularly those that resemble traditional sports betting. The distinction between a ‘swap’ and a ‘sports bet,’ as highlighted by Gensler, is critical for defining regulatory boundaries and determining which federal or state statutes apply.
Originally reported by: Decrypt. Published: 6/12/2026, 11:02:05 AM.