Speaking at the Cantor Convergence conference on November 13, 2026, Selig accused state authorities of aggressively challenging businesses operating under federal derivatives regulation. His remarks followed criminal charges against Kalshi executives in Utah and new enforcement actions in Arkansas and Louisiana.
The confrontation has also reached federal courts. The Justice Department and CFTC filed lawsuits against Arkansas and Louisiana on November 12 and 13, respectively, seeking to prevent the states from enforcing gambling restrictions against federally regulated prediction markets.
Why Is Selig Challenging Criminal Enforcement Against Executives?
Selig argued that state prosecutors are exposing prediction market executives to potential imprisonment over a regulatory disagreement that remains unresolved across federal courts.
He specifically criticized efforts to pursue company founders and chief executives for offering event contracts that the CFTC considers lawful under the Commodity Exchange Act.
The comments follow 14 criminal charges filed in Utah against Kalshi and its executives on October 28. The defendants include CEO Tarek Mansour and COO Luana Lopes Lara.
The charges consist of one second-degree felony count alleging a pattern of unlawful activity, 12 third-degree felony counts concerning online gambling promotion and one misdemeanor count. Utah prosecutors allege that Kalshi illegally facilitated contracts tied to sporting events.
Kalshi disputes the allegations, and the defendants have not been convicted.
Selig maintains that the CFTC has exclusive authority over derivatives traded on federally registered exchanges. He has expressed willingness to take the jurisdictional dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court rather than continue fighting separate enforcement actions across multiple states.
However, the chairman’s position does not itself invalidate existing state proceedings. Courts must determine whether federal commodities law preempts the particular state gambling restrictions being challenged.
Investor Takeaway
Criminal proceedings create risks beyond financial penalties or temporary product restrictions. Potential exposure for company executives could influence management decisions, expansion plans and the willingness of financial institutions to support prediction market operators.
How Are Arkansas and Louisiana Challenging Federal Authority?
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin filed a state enforcement action against Kalshi on November 4, alleging violations of gambling and consumer protection laws.
The Justice Department and CFTC responded with a federal complaint on November 12, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Arkansas and Griffin. The CFTC publicly announced the action on November 13.
As FinanceFeeds reported, federal authorities argue that Arkansas cannot prohibit transactions offered through CFTC-regulated exchanges when those activities fall within the regulator’s statutory authority.
The CFTC said Arkansas was the 11th state it had sued to defend federal interests in prediction markets. It has also submitted supporting briefs in four federal appellate courts and one state supreme court.
Louisiana escalated the dispute on November 12 when Attorney General Liz Murrill brought an enforcement action targeting Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, Coinbase and other prediction market businesses.
The case, previously covered by FinanceFeeds, resulted in a temporary restraining order issued that evening by a Louisiana state court.
The order restricts the defendants from offering or facilitating specified event contracts involving Louisiana residents without the required state licenses.
On November 13, federal authorities filed a separate lawsuit in the Eastern District of Louisiana challenging the state’s enforcement action. Their complaint identifies 32 defendant entities in the state proceedings, including registered exchanges, clearing organizations and intermediaries.
Investor Takeaway
Federal registration has not prevented states from obtaining court orders against prediction market activity. Operators face potential revenue disruption from jurisdiction-specific restrictions, while clearing firms and brokers may also encounter operational and legal exposure.
Why Could the Supreme Court Determine Market Access?
The central legal question is whether event contracts offered on CFTC-regulated exchanges are derivatives protected by federal law or products that states can restrict under gambling legislation.
The CFTC argues that qualifying event contracts are swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and therefore fall within its exclusive jurisdiction.
States challenging these products maintain that federal exchange registration does not automatically exempt sports-related contracts from gambling restrictions, licensing requirements or consumer protection laws.
Federal courts have reached different conclusions. The Third Circuit has supported Kalshi’s position in litigation involving New Jersey, while the Sixth Circuit has rejected its arguments in disputes concerning Ohio and Tennessee.
The conflicting outcomes increase the importance of potential Supreme Court review, although no nationwide resolution has been established.
The stakes extend beyond Kalshi and Polymarket. Brokerage platforms including Robinhood and Coinbase, which provide customer access to event contracts, could face restrictions affecting product distribution and transaction-related revenue.
The litigation also affects liquidity providers and other intermediaries whose participation supports exchange operations.
What Comes Next for Prediction Market Regulation?
The immediate developments will come from the federal challenges to Arkansas and Louisiana, alongside ongoing appellate proceedings and Utah’s criminal case.
Federal authorities are seeking to prevent enforcement of state laws against transactions they consider subject to exclusive CFTC supervision. The states, meanwhile, continue to assert their authority over gambling activities within their borders.
A ruling confirming broad federal preemption could reduce the need for prediction market operators to defend similar products separately across jurisdictions. A narrower interpretation could leave companies facing different restrictions depending on where customers are located.
Neither outcome has been settled, and Selig’s support for federal jurisdiction does not guarantee how the courts will rule.
Investor Takeaway
For prediction market businesses and their financial partners, the most consequential near-term developments are enforceable court orders and appellate decisions rather than statements by regulators. These rulings will determine where contracts can be offered and whether federal registration provides protection against state enforcement.
