Federal Judge William C. Griesbach released orders in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s lawsuit against the state of Wisconsin on Wednesday, denying a series of petitions to the court from various parties. The most poignant of them was the request of the plaintiffs in the case to preliminarily enjoin Wisconsin officials from enforcing state law against prediction market exchange operators.
The ruling comes just days after a similar opinion produced a favorable result for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in neighboring Minnesota. The two decisions differ substantially on the pertinent questions of the nature of event contracts and the sovereignty of state governments over that activity.

Griesbach’s July 29 opinion addressed several requests to the court, and denied all of them simultaneously. The only denial that seems ripe for an appeal is the denial of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) motion for a preliminary injunction, though.
Griesbach stated in his decision that the CFTC fell short on all of the three most important standards for granting the injunction, as “the CFTC has failed to show that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its argument, that it will suffer irreparable harm, or that the balance of equities favors it.”
The CFTC had also moved for a change of venue from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to the Western District of Wisconsin. Several parties with interests on both sides of the dispute, like the American Gaming Association and Kalshi, had requested to file amici (briefs in support of either the defendants or the plaintiffs).
Wisconsin moved to dismiss the case entirely as well. With all of those motions denied, the case will proceed to trial, thus far representing another example of the divergent readings of the same situation in federal courts across the United States.
Wisconsin officials are free to continue with their attempts at enforcing the state’s gambling laws against prediction market exchange operators pending the CFTC’s appeal of Griesbach’s decision. Other state governments are dealing with the kind of injunction that the CFTC sought in that case, though.
As just one example, a federal judge in Minnesota granted the CFTC’s request for injunctive relief blocking the enforcement of a law in that state restricting event contract trading. That order came down on Monday.
Comparing the text of the two opinions from separate federal courts just days apart shows the divergence in thought about the issues at hand. For example, while Griesbach found that the CFTC’s argument that federal law preempts Wisconsin statutes on the matter of event contract trading is lacking, the judge in the Minnesota case stated that they identified sufficient merit in that same argument to enjoin Minnesota.
Further word in both of these cases could be forthcoming from the U.S. Seventh and Eighth circuit courts of appeal. At this time, though, they demonstrate how wildly different results can emanate from identical arguments and facts in court.
Visit our Ballislife Play page for more of the latest news and updates.
