While it's obviously sports betting, the fact is that federal law gives the CFTC the power to determine what is and isn't a future and expressly preempts state intervention in futures markets. And, the case as to why futures markets generally should be subject only to federal oversight is quite strong IMO. So, the case can quickly become whether or not the CFTC should consider sports betting to be a future, and judges typically defer to the executive branch when it's not obvious (and in this case I don't think it is, the bar owner in Philly hedging an Eagles loss is an entirely plausible, albeit unlikely and uncommon, situation).

While I am partial to the argument that the CFTC is actually taking away the states' 10th Amendment police power right, that is a somewhat tenuous case in comparison to the enumerated right of the federal government to provide sole jurisdiction to the executive branch to enforce a law (and not to mention a law that impacts interstate commerce).

I imagine Minnesota loses this case and what's far more likely is either a more liberal congress changes what is a future by law or a more liberal executive branch reduces the protections for Kalshi et al.

90% agree, the CFTC doesn't consider these futures contracts, it regulates them under its "contract market" authority, that Congress designated and updated periodically over time

This is the authority on the CFTC's own website on prediction markets "For more information" section

https://www.cftc.gov/LearnandProtect/PredictionMarkets

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&...

And yes, both the Supremacy clause and the Interstate commerce clause neutralize any 10th amendment claim, unless the Federal government or any of its agencies was completely mum on the activity. But since the Federal government has exerted authority over that industry, via the interstate commerce clause, states can pound sand.