CFTC Asks Court to Block Connecticut a Day After Its Nine Cease-and-Desists

The federal regulator moved for a preliminary injunction on 11 September, with Robinhood pressing to join the case and Crypto.com taking the Nevada question to the Supreme Court. Connecticut's responses are due on 2 October.

• The United States and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against Connecticut on 11 September in the District of Connecticut, according to the court docket, requesting oral argument
• The filing came a day after Governor Ned Lamont announced cease-and-desist orders against nine prediction markets and nearly 30 subpoenas
• Robinhood Derivatives, one of the nine, filed a notice the same day on its pending motion to intervene, attaching the Governor's press release; Connecticut does not oppose its intervention, Gambling Insider reports
• Responses to the injunction motion are due on 2 October; the state's motion to dismiss the federal suit has been fully briefed since July and is undecided
• Crypto.com's North American Derivatives Exchange petitioned the Supreme Court on 11 September over the Ninth Circuit's Nevada ruling, joining Robinhood's petition, according to Gambling Insider

The Federal Government Answered Connecticut Within 24 Hours

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has asked a federal judge to stop Connecticut enforcing its gambling laws against prediction markets, filing the day after the state ordered nine platforms to stop offering sports contracts to its residents.

The motion for a preliminary injunction was filed on 11 September in United States and CFTC v. State of Connecticut, case 3:26-cv-00498, before Judge Vernon D. Oliver in Hartford, according to the docket. The plaintiffs, represented by the CFTC's Office of General Counsel and the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, seek an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and have requested oral argument. The motion is supported by a 47-page memorandum of law and a declaration from DJ Hennes. Responses are due by 2 October.

The federal suit itself dates from 2 April 2026, when the government sued the state, Consumer Protection Commissioner Bryan Cafferelli and Attorney General William Tong, arguing that the Commodity Exchange Act pre-empts state regulation of event contracts listed on CFTC-designated exchanges. Connecticut moved to dismiss; that motion was fully briefed by 8 July and remains pending. Claims against the Department of Consumer Protection's Gaming Division and its director were dismissed without prejudice by stipulation in July.

On the same day as the injunction motion, Robinhood Derivatives, which had moved to intervene in the case on 29 June, filed a notice drawing the court's attention to its pending motion and attaching the Governor's 10 September press release as an exhibit. Robinhood received one of the nine cease-and-desist orders. Gambling Insider reports that Connecticut does not oppose Robinhood's intervention.

Two Tracks to the Supreme Court

The Connecticut filing lands in a week when the question of who regulates sports event contracts moved closer to the Supreme Court from the other side of the country. Crypto.com's North American Derivatives Exchange filed a petition for certiorari on 11 September, according to Gambling Insider, asking the court to review the Ninth Circuit's 28 August ruling that the Commodity Exchange Act does not pre-empt Nevada's regulation of the contracts. Robinhood filed its own petition on the same ruling last week, and New Jersey has asked the court to review the Third Circuit's decision the other way, in Kalshi's favour.

Connecticut's own record in the litigation is the strongest of any state's. In August, Judge Oliver's court denied Kalshi a preliminary injunction and an injunction pending appeal, finding that sports event contracts are, "at bottom", sports wagers, and the state then sued Kalshi for what it took from residents. Kalshi's appeal is before the Second Circuit. Coinbase's separate suit against the state has been stayed.

The CFTC Is Asking the Judge Who Ruled Against Kalshi to Rule for the CFTC

The awkward fact in this motion is its venue. The federal government is asking for a preliminary injunction from the same district court that, a month ago, examined the identical pre-emption theory in Kalshi's hands and rejected it in unusually blunt terms. The CFTC's argument is not Kalshi's argument, and the government as plaintiff carries a weight a private exchange does not, but the legal question, whether the Commodity Exchange Act displaces state gambling law for contracts on sporting events, is the one Judge Oliver has already answered. A preliminary injunction requires a likelihood of success on the merits. The CFTC filed knowing that, which suggests the motion is as much about building the record for the Second Circuit and beyond as about winning in Hartford. The 47-page memorandum and the request for oral argument point the same way.

Connecticut's Orders Changed the Case From Abstract to Concrete

Until last week the federal suit was a pre-emption argument about a state's authority. Lamont's nine orders, the withdrawal instruction and the subpoenas to PayPal, Sportradar and the app stores turned it into a dispute over live enforcement against named exchanges, which is why Robinhood rushed the press release onto the docket and why the CFTC could plausibly claim the irreparable harm an injunction requires. That cuts both ways. A state that has issued orders and can point to under-21 and self-excluded bettors on the platforms has a concrete public-interest case of its own, and the Connecticut court has shown it weighs that heavily. With Nevada, New Jersey and now Crypto.com all at the Supreme Court's door, the likeliest outcome of the Hartford motion is not a resolution but a fourth vehicle for the same question.

The CFTC has now sued or moved against the states most willing to enforce. Whether that ends in a federal injunction or a Supreme Court grant, Connecticut has made itself the case to watch.