An interim final rule would carve casino-style gambling products out of the swap definition, and a proposed rule would bring event contracts inside it. Neither text has been released.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has two rules waiting at the White House that could redraw the legal ground under prediction markets.
The federal government's regulatory review listings show both pending at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The first, RIN 3038-AF81, is an interim final rule titled "Further Definition of 'Swap' to Exclude Casino-Style Gambling Products." The second, RIN 3038-AF82, is a proposed rule titled "Further Definition of 'Swap' to Include Event Contracts."
The texts have yet to be published, so the titles are the clearest guide to their intent.
Why the definition matters
Whether event contracts count as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act sits at the center of the fight over whether federal law displaces state gambling law. On Sept. 25, the Sixth Circuit held that Kalshi's sports contracts are not swaps and that Ohio and Tennessee may apply their gambling laws to them. That ruling was one of several appellate losses for Kalshi in the past month.
Read together, the two titles point toward a line between event contracts, which would fall inside the swap definition, and casino-style products, which would fall outside it. Where the rules draw that line will not be clear until the texts are published.
The court calendar
The rules would arrive in the middle of Supreme Court proceedings on the same question. Responses are due Oct. 14 in No. 26-338, Oct. 15 in No. 26-344 and Nov. 9 in No. 26-299, New Jersey's petition against Kalshi.
Two readings
One reading is that a federal definition bringing event contracts inside the swap framework would strengthen the argument that they belong under CFTC oversight rather than state gambling regulators. A carve-out for casino-style products would give the agency a way to concede the most gambling-like products while keeping event contracts.
The other reading is that the rules would face comment, and likely litigation, of their own, and that courts have already reached conclusions on the existing definitions. A new rule might not resolve the question the justices are being asked to decide.
What to watch
Clearance from the White House review office and publication of the texts are the next steps. The Supreme Court response deadlines on Oct. 14, Oct. 15 and Nov. 9 will set the pace on the judicial side.