Connect with us

News

Minnesota becomes first state to ban prediction markets

Published

on

Minnesota becomes first state to ban prediction markets

Minnesota has enacted the most far-reaching crackdown on massively popular services like Kalshi and Polymarket.

Steve Karnowski/Associated Press


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Steve Karnowski/Associated Press

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has signed the nation’s first law banning prediction market sites from operating in the state, and in response, the Trump administration has sued, teeing up a legal battle over the most far-reaching crackdown on popular services like Kalshi and Polymarket.

It comes as states confront a growing standoff with the Trump administration over how to regulate the industry, which allows people to bet on virtually anything.

The new state law makes it a crime to host or advertise a prediction market, which it defines as a system that lets consumers place a wager on a future outcome, like sports, elections, live entertainment, someone’s word choice and world affairs.

Advertisement

The prohibition extends to services supporting prediction markets, like virtual private networks, that could allow consumers to disguise their location and get around the ban.

It would force prediction market sites like Kalshi and Polymarket to leave the state, or face possible felony charges. The law takes effect in August.

“We as a state should decide how best and what regulations we think should attach to gambling, to protect public safety, to protect our kids,” said Minnesota Rep. Emma Greenman, the Democrat who introduced the measure.

The law has a carve-out for event contracts that serve as an insurance policy in the event of “harm, or loss sustained” and for the purchase of securities and other commodities.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s lawsuit seeks to block the law before it starts, arguing the prediction market industry should be exclusively regulated by federal officials.

Advertisement

“This Minnesota law turns lawful operators and participants in prediction markets into felons overnight,” said CFTC Chairman Michael Selig. “Minnesota farmers have relied on critical hedging products on weather and crop-related events for decades to mitigate their risks. Governor Walz chose to put special interests first and American farmers and innovators last.”

Besides Minnesota, bills cracking down on the prediction market industry have been introduced in seven other states, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. Two of those states, Hawaii and North Carolina, have pending bills seeking to ban the industry statewide.

Experts say the cloud of legal uncertainty hanging over prediction markets apps have not slowed their rapid growth.

“The states are using any tactic they can to go after the prediction market companies,” said Melinda Roth, a professor at Washington and Lee University’s School of Law, who studies the industry. “But they’ve embarked on a too big to fail strategy and have become quite mainstream,” she said. “It will be hard to put that genie back in the bottle.”

A legal fight over the Minnesota ban is expected. Questions over whether states or the federal government should oversee the prediction market industry have already triggered more than 20 lawsuits. One of those cases, in Nevada, led to Kalshi pausing its sports betting in the state after a judge found it “indistinguishable” from state-regulated sports gambling.

Advertisement

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has filed federal lawsuits against five states, including Arizona, Wisconsin and New York, attempting to override state regulators’ attempts to rein in the betting sites.

The CFTC has argued it has exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets, even though former CFTC members and legal experts say bets on football games, words President Trump might say during a press conference and whether Ricky Martin will make an appearance at the Super Bowl are matters far outside its traditional scope.

In a statement to NPR, Kalshi spokeswoman Elisabeth Diana said banning prediction markets is a “blatant violation” of the law.

“Minnesota banning prediction markets is like trying to ban the New York Stock Exchange,” said Diana, adding that “this actively harms users because it reduces competition and drives activity offshore.”

A Polymarket spokesman told NPR that Minnesota’s ban runs counter to the federal government’s “established framework” for regulating prediction markets.

Advertisement

Tribal-owned casinos operate in Minnesota, but online gambling and sports betting are not legal in the state.

Prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket have given access to sports betting to people in states where the activity is prohibited, since the Trump administration regulates the sites as a type of “event contract,” rather than gambling, which typically is overseen by state gaming authorities.

Nonetheless, sports gambling powers the sites. On Kalshi, for instance, more than 85% of trading activity is related to a sporting event, some of those trades being “parlays,” high-risk wagers that multiple things, points scored, fouls, passes, will all happen.

Bettors on the sites are making billions of dollars in trades every week, even as questions around insider trading and how the markets can create perverse incentives for people to manipulate real world outcomes continue to vex the companies.

Minnesota Public Radio News reporters Dana Ferguson and Peter Cox contributed reporting to this story.

Advertisement

News

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

Published

on

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.

Casper rejected the Republican administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.

The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” wrote Casper.

Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.

Advertisement

In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.

“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” said James, a Democrat.

A voter casts a ballot during New York’s primary election on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, in New York. (AP Photo/Ryan Murphy)

Advertisement

Advertisement

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle that it s up to the states and Congress to set election rules.

“While we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump’s attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down,” Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement. “So let me be clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way.”

Requests for comment sent to the White House and he U.S. Department of Justice were not immediately returned.

The ruling was the latest in a series against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. The Republican president has since signed another executive order on elections that seeks to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.

Advertisement

Last fall, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred Trump’s defense secretary from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.

In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.

On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he would not sign legislation until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.

The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens. Violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.

In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by Election Day.

Advertisement

Casper, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Published

on

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

new video loaded: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

transcript

transcript

Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

“I see a New York that we can all afford. I see a New York that truly invests in its babies, not bombs.” Reporter: “What’s the first thing you’re looking forward to doing in Congress?” “Well, tomorrow — thank you — I mean, tomorrow morning, you know, I’m going to be back at 26 Federal Plaza doing court watching, and we want to carry that into Congress as well.”

Advertisement
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

By Julie Yoon

June 24, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

Published

on

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

A massive 826,780-square-foot warehouse sits illuminated Feb. 12, 2026, in the El Paso suburb of Socorro, Texas, that was recently purchased by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for $122.8 million.

Morgan Lee/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Morgan Lee/AP

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the United States, not just near the border.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a lower court decision that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s expanded use of expedited removal. The ruling was a big victory for the Republican administration, which views the expansion of so-called expedited removal as a key tool for carrying out its mass deportation policy.

Expedited removal — quick deportation without a chance to appear before a judge — has previously been applied to migrants arriving by sea or caught at or near the border shortly after crossing.

Advertisement

In January, Trump expanded its use to undocumented migrants all over the United States. Immigration agents began whisking migrants away from courthouses where they had gone for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days.

“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

Balakrishnan represented plaintiffs in arguments before the appellate panel and said its ruling “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”

DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, one of the judges on the panel, said the plaintiffs had not shown the expanded use of expedited removal violated due process rights. Immigrants received notice of removal proceedings and were given a chance to respond, he wrote in his opinion.

Walker and the second judge in the majority, Neomi Rao, were appointed by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Advertisement

Walker said there was no requirement that the administration inform immigrants that they can avoid expedited removal if they can show they have been in the United States for more than two years.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending