⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The First Circuit hears Robinhood Derivatives versus Campbell, a case that grew out of Massachusetts's effort to regulate contracts tied to sports results. Robinhood lets customers place orders through its platform, with trades executed on Kalshi's exchange. Massachusetts sued Kalshi, alleging unlicensed sports wagering. Robinhood then sued Massachusetts's attorney general and gaming officials in federal court before they brought a case against Robinhood itself. Robinhood claims federal commodities law prevents the state from using gambling laws against this business. But before reaching that question, a federal court must decide whether there is a sufficiently immediate dispute to hear at all. That is ripeness: whether this dispute is ready for a decision, rather than dependent on uncertain future events. The district court dismissed Robinhood's case as unripe, not because it decided whether these contracts were lawful. State officials had offered a conditional promise to hold off on enforcement against Robinhood while related state-court litigation unfolded. Robinhood will argue that postponing a lawsuit is different from protecting it against liability for the trades happening now. It says potential exposure continues to grow and the temporary promise could expire. The state officials will contend that any risk of enforcement depends on future decisions and is not immediate enough for a federal case. Listen for the difference between Robinhood, which routes customers' orders, and Kalshi, the exchange; and between a promise not to sue yet and a promise never to impose liability for this conduct. This appeal asks whether Robinhood can get a federal hearing now, rather than first waiting to be sued.

Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Campbell (No. 26-1257) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.