US state lawmakers have stepped into the Kalshi prediction-markets dispute, filing an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to address whether state gaming regulators can rein in platforms that offer event-based “contracts” linked to sports and other outcomes.

The filing—submitted by the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States (NCLGS) on Tuesday—backs the position of New Jersey’s Attorney General and gaming authorities as they pursue a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court docket in question stems from a Sept. 2 request, which asks justices to consider New Jersey’s legal challenge to Kalshi and to clarify the balance between state authority and federal oversight.

Key takeaways

• NCLGS filed an amicus brief supporting New Jersey and state gaming regulators in their dispute with Kalshi over prediction-market activity.
• The lawmakers argue that a ruling for Kalshi would effectively leave states “powerless” to regulate prediction-market sports betting.
• The brief warns that any preemption ruling could force broader changes to the regulated gaming landscape across US jurisdictions.
• Kalshi has not yet filed its official Supreme Court response; the deadline for its brief is Nov. 9.

Why the Supreme Court case matters for state gaming oversight

At the center of the controversy is jurisdiction: New Jersey and gaming authorities are asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether state governments—or federal agencies—have the legal authority to regulate prediction-market platforms operating through event contracts.

According to the amicus brief, if the Supreme Court rules in a way that limits state regulation of Kalshi’s so-called “sports betting” activities, states would lose the ability to set rules for how such products are marketed and offered within their borders. The NCLGS argues that this would create “substantial harm and confusion,” in part because it would undermine existing regulatory frameworks designed for heavily supervised gaming activities.

The lawmakers also frame the issue as one that should remain a matter for state control over “gaming-related matters.” However, the brief acknowledges a competing argument raised in the dispute: that certain event contracts traded on federally regulated markets could fall under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. In other words, the underlying fight is not only about whether states want to regulate, but about whether the law allows them to do so in light of federal regulatory authority.

Potential ripple effects beyond one platform

A notable part of the NCLGS filing is its emphasis on what a favorable ruling for Kalshi could trigger across the US gaming industry.

In its argument, the group contends that if Kalshi’s products are treated as beyond state regulation, then other highly regulated operators—such as casinos and pari-mutuel businesses—may seek to restructure offerings to obtain similar legal treatment. The amicus brief warns that this would compel states to reconsider entire regulatory regimes tied to “vice activity” if federal preemption is found in this area.

While the Supreme Court has not yet ruled, the way the lawmakers describe downstream consequences highlights a key investor and operator concern: if the legal boundary between state oversight and federal preemption shifts, the compliance costs and product design strategies for companies in regulated gambling ecosystems could change quickly.

How the dispute reached the Supreme Court

New Jersey’s petition for a writ of certiorari is part of an appeal that followed an earlier decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Supreme Court petition, filed Sept. 2, asks the Court to consider New Jersey’s case against Kalshi and potentially resolve a broader jurisdictional question affecting prediction markets.

The framing of the case is important because it may determine whether state regulators can enforce traditional gaming laws against prediction-market products, or whether federal regulation—particularly the CFTC’s role—dominates in areas where event contracts intersect with federally supervised markets.

At present, the Supreme Court has not announced a decision, and the outcome could hinge on how the Court interprets the relationship between state gaming authority and federal jurisdiction in this specific category of financial-like instruments tied to real-world events.

What happens next in Kalshi’s Supreme Court response

Kalshi has not yet provided an official response to the certiorari petition in the Supreme Court. The company has until Nov. 9 to file its brief stating its position.

In earlier commentary associated with the initial filing, a Kalshi spokesperson told Cointelegraph that the platform “could not be regulated by 50 different regulators.” That stance reflects a central theme in prediction-market regulation debates: companies argue that fragmented state regimes can create legal uncertainty, while state lawmakers argue that gaming should remain subject to local oversight.

As the case moves forward, attention will likely focus on whether the Court views the relevant contracts as properly falling within federal regulatory authority, and—if not—what standards states may apply to similar products going forward.

For now, market participants, gaming operators, and developers should watch for the Supreme Court’s progress on certiorari and, critically, the arguments Kalshi makes in its upcoming Nov. 9 brief—because the justices’ interpretation of jurisdiction could reshape how prediction markets and related products are offered across US jurisdictions.

President Donald Trump disclosed that he bought between $50,001 and $100,000 worth of Strategy (Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy) shares in late July, according to a U.S. Office of Government Ethics filing released Tuesday. The disclosure also references earlier purchases of the bitcoin-linked software company, as well as other crypto-adjacent transactions.

In the same disclosure, Trump reported a smaller Strategy buy three days earlier and described additional activity tied to several other crypto-related firms, including stock trades involving Coinbase and sales of bitcoin miner holdings including MARA Holdings and CleanSpark. The Strategy purchase dated July 27 is the largest bitcoin-exposure transaction identified in the document.

Key takeaways

• Trump disclosed a $50,001–$100,000 Strategy share purchase on July 27, following a $1,001–$15,000 buy on July 24.
• Strategy remains one of the most widely followed public corporate bitcoin proxies, holding 846,000 BTC according to BitcoinTreasuries.net data referenced in the filing coverage.
• The filings report transaction values in ranges, not an ongoing share count, so remaining Strategy holdings cannot be directly determined.
• White House guidance to CNBC says Trump’s portfolio is managed independently by third-party financial institutions without input from Trump or his family.
• The disclosures land as U.S. regulators and lawmakers continue working through crypto policy issues amid stalled comprehensive market-structure legislation.

What the disclosure says about Strategy shares

According to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics filing linked in the report, Trump’s July trades included a purchase of Strategy shares valued between $50,001 and $100,000 on July 27, after buying between $1,001 and $15,000 worth on July 24. The document also indicates earlier Strategy activity, including another $50,001–$100,000 purchase disclosed previously on Feb. 12, as tracked by BitcoinTreasuries.net.

While the filings show multiple transactions over time, they do not provide a running total of shares held. Instead, reported activity is expressed in value brackets, meaning it is not possible to calculate how many Strategy shares—if any—remain in Trump’s portfolio based solely on the disclosures.

Strategy is described as the world’s largest publicly traded corporate bitcoin holder, with 846,000 BTC reported by BitcoinTreasuries.net. That fact matters for readers because Strategy’s stock is often treated by markets as a proxy for corporate bitcoin exposure—albeit with equity market dynamics layered on top of bitcoin price movement.

Broader portfolio trades and independent management

The Strategy purchase is presented in the context of a wider set of portfolio transactions reported for July. The filing indicates sales of between $5 million and $25 million each of Microsoft and Amazon stock on July 20, alongside several additional buys and sells in the $1 million to $5 million range.

On Tuesday, the White House told CNBC that Trump’s stock and bond portfolio is independently managed by third-party financial institutions and that Trump or his family do not provide input into those investment decisions. That characterization is important for interpreting the disclosure: it suggests investors should treat the reported trades as part of a broader managed portfolio process, rather than assuming a single direct investment thesis or immediate reaction to bitcoin market moves.

For traders, the key question is how to connect the disclosure to market pricing. The report notes that Strategy shares have rallied sharply in recent sessions—nearly 30% over the past five trading days and about 37% over the past month according to Yahoo Finance data—highlighting that the stock’s performance has been strong regardless of whether a specific public figure disclosed ownership.

Crypto policy backdrop: stalled legislation, active regulators

Trump’s Strategy disclosure arrives amid continued U.S. government activity around digital-asset regulation—even as comprehensive market structure legislation remains stuck in Congress. The report states that the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act on Sept. 15, but that regulators have proceeded using existing authorities.

Two days after the CLARITY Act cloture vote failed, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cleared limited onchain trading of tokenized U.S. stocks under a temporary exemption, according to coverage linked in the report. In parallel, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) eased registration requirements for certain software providers offering access to regulated derivatives markets, as described in the cited coverage.

Separately, the CFTC also sent a broader crypto market rulemaking initiative to the White House for review on Sept. 17. As characterized in the report, the initiative—titled “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets”—is still in preliminary stages and has not yet become a formal proposal.

For market participants, this regulatory sequencing matters. When omnibus legislation stalls, targeted exemptions and rulemaking under current legal frameworks can still change how tokenized assets, exchange functions, and market-access technology are regulated. Investors watching disclosure stories around publicly traded bitcoin proxies often should also track these regulatory moves, because they can shift demand for crypto-related products and the risk profile of platforms serving those markets.

Bitcoin policy efforts extend beyond markets

The report also ties the broader political context to bitcoin itself. It notes that the House Financial Services Committee voted 28–21 to advance legislation that would codify a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” into law and require bitcoin placed in the reserve to be held for at least 20 years, citing earlier coverage linked in the report.

In addition, the report says the U.S. government currently holds an estimated 324,527 BTC, referencing Arkham Intelligence data. While such estimates can vary by methodology, the figure underscores why bitcoin exposure is increasingly treated as a policy and balance-sheet topic—not only a market-trading theme.

Against that backdrop, disclosures involving corporate bitcoin holders like Strategy can quickly become part of the political narrative around digital assets, even when the disclosed transaction itself is comparatively small relative to broader holdings and portfolio trades.

As more filings surface, readers may want to watch two things next: whether Trump’s disclosed crypto-adjacent trades continue to shift over subsequent quarters, and whether the regulatory groundwork laid after the CLARITY Act setback translates into formal proposals that meaningfully affect tokenized markets and crypto derivatives access.

Visa has released new survey results suggesting that stablecoin adoption among Americans could rise meaningfully if issuers offered protections that resemble the banking system—particularly fraud safeguards and deposit insurance.

In a study of 2,192 US-based consumers conducted by Morning Consult between February and March, Visa found that “adoption intention” for stablecoins could increase from 36% to 56% under a hypothetical scenario that includes bank-level fraud protection and deposit insurance.

Key takeaways

• Visa/Morning Consult’s survey points to higher stablecoin willingness when consumers associate the product with bank-style fraud safeguards.
• Adoption intention rises from 36% to 56% in Visa’s hypothetical scenario with deposit insurance and fraud protection.
• Trust, in the survey results, is strongly linked to who provides the payment service—not to the underlying technology alone.
• Europe is also debating stablecoin reserve rules under MiCA, with central bank representatives arguing for changes to bank-deposit thresholds.

Why “bank-like” protections could unlock more stablecoin demand

Visa’s findings center on what drives consumer trust and willingness to use stablecoins for cross-border payments. According to the company, the survey asked participants about financial terms such as stablecoins and compared baseline responses with scenarios that introduced traditional safety features.

Visa reported that nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents said trust depends more on the payment provider than on the technology itself. That framing matters because it suggests stablecoins may face adoption friction not only from technical complexity, but from a perceived mismatch with familiar consumer protection norms.

Consistent with that idea, Visa said willingness to use stablecoins increases from 36% to 45% when stablecoins are offered through an existing financial provider—an environment where consumers may expect established safeguards, oversight practices, and recourse.

The US policy backdrop: GENIUS and the question of insurance

Visa’s survey arrives as US regulators prepare for the implementation of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. Visa pointed to the timing of GENIUS rulemaking as companies work toward eventual execution, with finalized guidance from key US financial agencies expected ahead of an effective date targeted for January 2027.

The survey’s “hypothetical scenario” also highlights a real regulatory tension: stablecoins are not currently treated the same way as bank deposits. Unlike traditional bank accounts, stablecoins do not inherently come with protections such as FDIC deposit insurance for consumer funds.

Under GENIUS, the expectation is that US stablecoins will not automatically include FDIC insurance or explicit fraud protection as of January. Instead, the framework is described as including guidelines aimed at addressing illicit activity risk, while still leaving open the broader consumer protection question that Visa’s survey suggests could influence adoption.

For market participants, this distinction is important. If consumer intent is highly sensitive to perceived safety mechanisms, then the effectiveness of stablecoin regulation may depend not just on compliance around reserve management and illicit finance controls, but on whether the final rules produce outcomes that consumers recognize as meaningful safeguards.

Visa’s full study is published through the company’s investor relations site: “Safeguards Could Boost Stablecoin Use Among Americans, Finds Visa Study”.

Europe debates reserve rules for stablecoins under MiCA

While the US focuses on how stablecoins should fit into national rules, Europe is also refining how it expects stablecoin reserves to be structured. On Tuesday, the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) called for changing rules that require stablecoins to back reserves with a specific minimum portion held as bank deposits—30% for most tokens, and 60% for “significant” stablecoins.

Instead of a deposit-heavy requirement, the ESCB proposed shifting the focus toward liquidity thresholds for reserve assets. The rationale, as described in coverage of the ESCB position, is that users could withdraw funds quickly, creating risks tied to deposit composition rather than asset liquidity overall.

The discussion sits within the broader Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, which began enforcing stablecoin-related rules in June 2024. MiCA’s implementation has been a central factor in how euro stablecoins structure compliance, issuance, and reserve practices across European markets.

What the US and EU debates suggest for stablecoin adoption

Taken together, Visa’s consumer research and the ESCB’s reserve-rule commentary underline a recurring theme in stablecoins: adoption depends on trust and practical risk management, not only on speed or cost.

Visa’s survey suggests that consumers view the identity of the provider as a key safety signal. In that light, bank-like arrangements—whether through stronger fraud controls, clearer protections, or stablecoin distribution via established financial institutions—may reduce perceived uncertainty for cross-border use cases.

Meanwhile, Europe’s call to adjust deposit-based reserve requirements reflects a different but related concern: stablecoin frameworks must account for fast-moving redemption behavior, and reserve composition should support liquidity when demand spikes.

For readers tracking where the sector is headed, the next critical variable is how regulators operationalize these policy goals. In the US, GENIUS rulemaking and the final shape of requirements around fraud and consumer protections will determine whether stablecoin issuance becomes more “recognizable” to consumers. In Europe, MiCA-linked reserve thresholds could influence how euro stablecoins manage liquidity and risk—and how compliant issuers design their reserve strategies.

As these developments progress, investors and builders should watch for whether regulatory frameworks translate into protections that consumers actually perceive—since Visa’s results imply that intention can shift dramatically when stablecoins look and feel more like an extension of the traditional payments and banking safety net.