Is Polymarket legal in Minnesota?

In 2026 Minnesota amended Minn. Stat. § 609.7615 to make prediction markets a crime. The July 27 order describes it as a law "prohibiting the creation, operation, and advertising of prediction markets in the state" and adds: "That law is scheduled to take effect on August 1, 2026" (p.2). Under the statute, a person who creates a prediction market, operates the platform, lists the events, holds the funds, sets the prices or settles the trades, among other acts, "is guilty of a felony" (pp.11-12), provided the acts are done "for consideration, and as part of a business" (p.12 n.9). A separate subdivision makes it a felony to advertise or market products that promote those trades (p.12). The text is in the 2026 session laws, the citation the order itself gives (p.2 n.1).

QCX LLC, which does business as Polymarket US, sued Attorney General Keith Ellison and other state officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (No. 26-cv-2841). Kalshi and the United States, together with the CFTC, each brought their own suit "within a few days of each other" (p.3 n.2). Across the three cases the defendants are the State of Minnesota, Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Ellison, the Department of Public Safety and Jon Anglin, who directs its Alcohol and Gambling Division (p.3 n.4). Judge Katherine Menendez heard the three together and decided all three motions in one order, stamped Doc. 51 in Kalshi's case, No. 26-cv-2778.

The order names QCX LLC, not Polymarket's parent. It records that "Polymarket US emphasizes that it is a distinct entity from its parent company 'Blockratize Inc. d/b/a Polymarket'" (p.13 n.10). QCX is a designated contract market, an exchange the CFTC approved on July 9, 2025. The court noted that "There is no real dispute that Kalshi and Polymarket US operate prediction markets within the meaning of the Minnesota law" (p.15), so the question was whether federal law lets Minnesota apply the statute to them at all.

The statute defines a prediction market by what the contract is about. It lists nine subjects (pp.10-11): athletic events and games of skill, including individual statistics; games played with cards, dice or machines; war, emergencies, disasters, mass shootings, terrorism and public health crises; events happening to a person or group; elections and the specific decisions of government; legal actions such as trials, pleas and settlements; death, assassination and mass casualty events; popular culture, including awards and release dates; and whether a person will make a particular statement.

The injunction does not pick among those subjects. Its operative paragraph reads: "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" (p.44). Two things follow from that wording. It reaches the whole statute, advertising included. And it protects every CFTC-registered exchange, not only the three plaintiffs.

The court granted it on one ground. It found the plaintiffs "likely to succeed, at least in part, on their express-preemption claims" (p.3), the argument that the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC "exclusive jurisdiction" over swaps traded on a registered exchange (p.24). The other claims, implied preemption and Polymarket US's First Amendment challenge to the advertising and data provisions, "are questions saved for another day" (p.38).

The order also marks its own limits. The judge wrote that the plaintiffs "have not shown that every event contract listed on Kalshi and Polymarket US fits the statutory definition of a 'swap'" and that "any permanent injunctive relief may be much narrower" (p.23). Her examples of contracts that might fall outside federal jurisdiction were two Kalshi markets, one on a reality television show and one on what announcers would say during World Cup broadcasts (p.35). She paused the whole statute anyway, to keep "the status quo until the merits of this case can be fully resolved" (p.23).

What the order leaves alone is Minnesota's older law. "This case does not concern any effort by Minnesota to apply its existing sports-betting laws to Kalshi or Polymarket US," the judge wrote. "Instead, Minnesota's prediction market statute applies to far more than sports-related event contracts" (p.24 n.17). We found no Minnesota action against Polymarket US under those laws.

No order addresses Minnesota accounts, deposits, withdrawals or open positions. The injunction speaks only to the state: it stops officials from enforcing the statute, and it gives Polymarket US no instruction about its customers.

The order does describe what the companies said they faced without one. If the statute took effect and was enforced, the court wrote, "the DCMs will either continue to offer their event contracts to Minnesota users and face potential felony charges, or they will need to take steps to exit the market for their trades in Minnesota" (p.39). Relying on declarations from Kalshi and Polymarket US, it added: "If no preliminary injunctive relief is awarded, the DCMs would cancel Minnesota users' trades" (p.40). The court also noted that the defendants "have not disavowed any intent to enforce the prediction market statute" once it took effect (p.39). On the state's side, the order records that the statute "was enacted in response to perceived serious harms caused by prediction markets like those run by Kalshi and Polymarket US" (p.41), and that Minnesota argued swaps "should only be understood to include event contracts that are tied to some commodity" (p.29). The injunction was entered on July 27, five days before the statute's effective date.

The international site is a separate product. Polymarket's geographic restrictions page lists the whole United States as close-only: "Users can close existing positions but cannot open new ones, on both the frontend and the API." That rule is the venue's own and does not come from Minnesota.

The injunction is preliminary. It runs "until a final decision on the merits is reached" (p.44), and the judge called it "not a final determination of the merits of the parties' claims and defenses" but "a preliminary assessment of the issues" (p.44). The order spells out both outcomes: if the plaintiffs prevail, the injunction "would simply have prevented enforcement of a state law that is preempted"; if Minnesota prevails, "the preliminary injunction will no longer be effective, and Defendants can begin enforcing the prediction market statute against those who violate it" (p.42). At Polymarket US's request, and with no objection from the state, the court required no bond (p.43).

We have not found a notice of appeal of the July 27 order, though we could not review the full dockets, so that is not confirmed. By the order's own terms, the merits remain to be decided in the three cases before Judge Menendez.

Three federal appeals courts have answered the question underneath, whether sports event contracts are swaps, in Kalshi's cases. On April 6, 2026 the Third Circuit, in New Jersey's case, held that Kalshi's sports contracts fit the definition of swaps and that Kalshi was likely to succeed in showing federal law preempts the state's ban. On August 28, 2026 the Ninth Circuit, in Nevada's case, held that sports contracts are likely not swaps. On September 25, 2026 the Sixth Circuit, in the Ohio and Tennessee cases, held that Kalshi had not shown its sports contracts are swaps, and that even if they were, federal commodities law does not preempt those states' gambling laws. Kalshi has asked the Ninth and Sixth Circuits to rehear their cases. All three rulings concern sports contracts under existing gambling laws, which the Minnesota order says its case does not involve (p.24 n.17). Petitions asking the Supreme Court whether federal commodities law preempts state gambling laws are pending; they are tracked on Kalshi at the Supreme Court. Every other state where an order or lawsuit names Polymarket is on the Polymarket legal hub.

Yes. Kalshi is a plaintiff in the same order, and the injunction covers it on the same terms as Polymarket US. Its other state cases are on the Kalshi legal page.

A preemption order is not a tax ruling. Polymarket taxes covers the forms and the routes people use.