Monitoring

Minnesota's prediction-market ban blocked days before it took effect

Minnesota's felony ban on prediction-market platforms was due to take effect on 1 August 2026. On Monday 27 July, four days out, a federal judge granted the CFTC, Kalshi and Polymarket a preliminary injunction and the state is blocked from enforcing it. Here is what was enjoined, what the order does not settle, and where the rest of the map stands.

What this decides — and what it does not

A preliminary injunction is not a final ruling. It is interim relief that holds things in place while the case is litigated. FOX 9 reports the order bars enforcement “until a final decision on the merits is reached in these cases” — which is the court saying, in the order itself, that the merits are still ahead of it.

So: the statute has not been struck down, repealed, or declared unconstitutional. The pre-emption question at the centre of the case — whether the federal Commodity Exchange Act displaces a state law like this one — has not been finally answered. What changed on 27 July is that Minnesota may not enforce the law for now. Nothing on this page is a prediction of how the case ends, and nothing on it is legal advice.

The order says the same thing about itself, in its closing lines: “The Court's determination is not a final determination of the merits of the parties' claims and defenses, but reflects a preliminary assessment of the issues.” Read from the order on 2026-08-02.

From the order itself

3 cases

The caption, in full

The order is captioned in three related cases in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota: United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. State of Minnesota, et al., No. 26-cv-2661 (KMM/DTS); KalshiEX LLC v. Keith Ellison, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Minnesota, et al., No. 26-cv-2778 (KMM/DTS); and QCX LLC, doing business as Polymarket US, v. Keith Ellison, et al., No. 26-cv-2841 (KMM/DTS). The named defendants across the three are the State of Minnesota, Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and Jon Anglin, Director of its Alcohol and Gambling Division.

Doc. 48

The document, dated and signed

Docketed in Case 0:26-cv-02841-KMM-DTS as Doc. 48, filed 07/27/26, running to 44 pages, and titled “ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.” It is signed “Date: July 27, 2026 · s/Katherine Menendez · United States District Judge,” and it grants three separate motions: CFTC (Dkt. 24), Kalshi (Dkt. 21) and Polymarket (Dkt. 19).

DCMs only

The operative scope — narrower than the headlines

This is the detail no report we read stated, and it materially limits the order. The decretal paragraph reads in full: “Until a final decision on the merits is reached in these cases, Defendants are enjoined from enforcing Minn. Stat. § 609.7615, as amended and adopted by SF 3432, against entities that are registered as designated contract markets by the CFTC.” The injunction therefore protects CFTC-registered designated contract markets. It is not an order that the statute may not be enforced at large.

at least in part

How far the likelihood finding actually goes

The court states its own holding with an express limit: Plaintiffs “have met their burden to show they are likely to succeed, at least in part, on their express-preemption claims, that they face a threat of irreparable harm, and that the balance of harms and the public interest weigh in favor of entering a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Minnesota’s prediction market statute until a final decision on the merits is reached.” Later the order puts the same point as the statute being “likely at least partially preempted by the CEA.”

Not reached

The First Amendment and implied-preemption claims

The order rests on express preemption alone. “Because Plaintiffs have shown they are likely to succeed on the merits of their express-preemption claims and are otherwise entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, the Court finds it unnecessary to address, at this stage, whether Plaintiffs are also likely to prevail on their implied-preemption argument or their First Amendment claims.” The court adds that the First Amendment claims “have not arisen in the dozen or so other prediction-market cases explored by the parties” and that “the questions raised are complex.”

No bond

Security waived under Rule 65(c)

Polymarket US asked the court to waive the security requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). The order records that “Defendants have not objected to that request for waiver of bond, and the Court finds it appropriate to waive the security requirement under the circumstances,” so Plaintiffs were not required to give security against having wrongfully enjoined the state.

Source: Order on Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction (PDF) · D. Minn., Doc. 48, filed 07/27/26 · read 2026-08-02

What was enjoined, precisely

The law is Minnesota SF 3432. Reporting from the 2 July hearing, Courthouse News describes it as making it a felony to create, operate, manage or control a prediction-market platform — “effectively forcing these exchanges to exit the state or face charges” — and identifies it as the nation's first outright ban on the platforms (Courthouse News, 2026-07-02). Crypto Briefing reports it was signed by Governor Tim Walz on 18 May 2026 and that operating or advertising a platform would have been a felony carrying up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine (Crypto Briefing, 2026-07-27).

Minnesota describes its own statute more narrowly than “prediction markets are banned.” In the Attorney General's own words, the state “passed a law making it a felony to offer or facilitate certain forms of event contracts – those involving sports, political, cultural, entertainment, legal, and catastrophic events – while leaving untouched commodity futures and other contracts used to manage financial, economic, or commercial risk” (Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, 2026-06-18). Courthouse News records the state making the same point at the hearing: agricultural risk-hedging transactions and standard securities and commodities transactions were not restricted by the ban. The federal side disputed that the carve-out worked: the CFTC said the law reached CFTC-regulated markets more broadly than any other state law it had sued over, “including criminalizing weather-related event contracts” (CFTC, press release 9233-26, 2026-05-19).

The 1 August date the order pre-empted

SF 3432 was due to commence on 1 August 2026, alongside a batch of other new Minnesota laws taking effect the same day (FOX 9, 2026-07-27). Every filing in the case was timed against that date: the CFTC said on 19 May that it was “seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the law from going into effect on August 1, 2026” (CFTC, 2026-05-19), and the Attorney General's office described the three motions as seeking “to temporarily prevent the statute from taking effect on August 1, while the full scope of the lawsuit plays out” (Minnesota Attorney General, 2026-06-18). The order landed on 27 July — four days before the deadline it was aimed at.

This page describes publicly reported court filings, orders and statements, each attributed to a named external source with an as-of date. Legal proceedings develop and a preliminary injunction can be modified, dissolved or appealed; the position may have changed since 2026-07-28. This page is information and entertainment only: it is not legal advice, not betting or financial advice, not a recommendation to wager, not a prediction of any case outcome, and not a determination of whether you may lawfully trade in your jurisdiction. For your own situation, check the current position where you are or seek qualified professional advice. Monitoring is not affiliated with any exchange, platform, or bookmaker.

← Prediction markets overviewState-by-state legal status →Accuracy ledger →

Monitoring Room