Minnesota’s Senate Just Voted 56-10 to Ban Prediction Markets — What Kalshi and Polymarket Users in the State Need to Know

On April 30, 2026, the Minnesota Senate voted 56-10 to ban prediction markets in the state — a bipartisan supermajority that sent a clear signal about how Minnesota lawmakers view platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket. The lopsided vote puts Minnesota among the most aggressive states in the country when it comes to reining in prediction markets, which have exploded in popularity over the past two years. Whether the bill makes it all the way into law, however, depends on what happens next in a House where the path forward is far less certain.

What the Bill Actually Bans

The legislation goes well beyond sports. If it becomes law, Minnesotans would be prohibited from placing wagers on a wide range of contract types that are currently available on Kalshi and Polymarket. The scope is broad by design, targeting categories that have become defining features of the prediction market industry.

The bill covers wagers on sports outcomes, weather events, popular culture events, war, and death. Those last two categories — war and death contracts — are among the most trafficked markets on Polymarket, where users can currently bet on geopolitical outcomes and even the deaths of public figures. Weather contracts are another major product line for Kalshi, which built much of its early user base around weather-related event contracts. This is not a narrow sportsbook-adjacent ban — it would essentially eliminate prediction market activity for Minnesota residents across the board.

Why Proponents Are Pushing for the Ban

The bill was introduced as an amendment to a broader public safety measure, which reflects how its sponsors are framing the issue. Sen. John Marty of Roseville has been one of the leading voices in support of the ban, arguing that platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket are effectively operating as unregulated gambling sites, and that current Minnesota law does not clearly cover them.

That gap in existing law is central to the bill’s rationale. Proponents argue that prediction markets have grown into a significant gambling product while operating outside the regulatory framework that governs traditional sports betting in Minnesota. Passing this bill would close that loophole and bring clarity to a space that has existed in a legal gray area.

Marty and other supporters have also raised concerns about insider trading dynamics. Because prediction markets allow anyone to bet on the outcome of real-world events, there is nothing stopping someone with advance knowledge of an outcome — whether a corporate executive, a government official, or anyone else with non-public information — from profiting on that knowledge. Unlike financial markets, which have robust insider trading laws, prediction markets have no equivalent protections. That concern has resonated beyond partisan lines, which helps explain the 56-10 vote total.

The House Is the Uncertain Path Forward

Despite the Senate’s commanding margin, the bill’s future is not guaranteed. The legislation has attracted bipartisan support in the House as well, but House Republican leadership has actively worked to block it from advancing. That dynamic creates genuine uncertainty about whether the bill will reach the governor’s desk before the legislative session ends.

Supporters of the bill have noted that bipartisan backing tends to keep legislation viable at the Minnesota Capitol even when leadership is resistant, and that “things seem to stay alive for a long time” given that cross-party interest. But without leadership support in the House, the bill could stall even with the votes theoretically available to pass it. Anyone tracking this legislation should watch for movement in House committee assignments and floor scheduling in the coming weeks.

The Broader State-Level Movement

Minnesota’s Senate action does not exist in isolation. Forty-one state attorneys general recently filed with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission urging that states retain jurisdiction over prediction markets — a significant show of force from state-level regulators who do not want the federal government to preempt state authority in this space. The CFTC had opened a public comment period on prediction market regulation that closed on May 1, 2026, just one day after the Minnesota Senate vote.

That timing is notable. The federal regulatory picture for prediction markets is still taking shape, and states like Minnesota are not waiting for Washington to act. For users familiar with how state-by-state sports betting has played out — with each state setting its own rules, tax rates, and approved operators — the prediction market landscape is beginning to follow a similar pattern of fragmented, state-by-state regulation.

What Kalshi and Polymarket Users in Minnesota Should Know

If the bill passes the House and is signed into law, the practical effect for Minnesota residents would mirror what happens in states where certain forms of gambling are prohibited. Geolocation technology — the same mechanism used to block users from placing bets on licensed sportsbooks when they are physically in a restricted state — would presumably be used by Kalshi and Polymarket to block users located in Minnesota from accessing regulated prediction market contracts. Users would not be able to legally place these wagers from within state lines.

For now, nothing has changed. The Senate vote is a significant step, but only a step. Minnesota users of both platforms can continue using them while the House process plays out. The smart move is to pay attention: if this bill advances through the House and heads to the governor, the window for legal prediction market activity in Minnesota could close relatively quickly once a signing date is set.

The 56-10 margin in the Senate makes clear that this is not a fringe effort. Prediction market users in Minnesota should treat this as a serious legislative threat that has already cleared its biggest hurdle.