The response deadline in Flaherty v. KalshiEX has moved back a month, and gaming-state legislators have weighed in.
The Supreme Court's timeline for deciding whether to hear the central legal fight over prediction markets has slipped past Election Day.
In Flaherty v. KalshiEX, docket No. 26-299, the response deadline has been extended to from . The case was docketed . On , the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States filed an amicus brief.
Why the date matters
The 32-day extension puts the response six days after the midterm elections. That has a practical consequence for the industry. Election contracts, from Senate races to House control, are a marquee product for these platforms, and the entire midterm cycle will now play out while the core question of state authority remains unresolved at the high court. Operators get one more election under the current patchwork of rulings, and states get one more cycle in which to watch the contracts trade.
The revised response schedule points to a later timetable for consideration of the petition, although the court controls its own calendar.
Three petitions, one question
Flaherty is one of three related petitions. Robinhood's petition is docketed as No. 26-338 and a petition involving NADEX and Crypto.com as No. 26-344. All three turn on whether federal commodities law displaces state gambling law for event contracts.
The gaming-state legislators' brief signals how the states intend to frame the issue: as a question of traditional state power over wagering, rather than a technical dispute about derivatives regulation.
The pressure is building below
Lower courts are not waiting. The Sixth Circuit ruled against Kalshi on , and Kalshi has asked the Ninth Circuit to rehear its case en banc. A deepening split among the circuits is one of the strongest arguments for the Supreme Court to step in.
What to watch
The filing, the status of the Robinhood and NADEX petitions and the Ninth Circuit's decision on rehearing. Further lower-court decisions could affect the arguments for Supreme Court review, particularly if they deepen a disagreement among circuits.