Fix the Court urges federal judiciary to ban prediction market use
Updated
Updated · Courthouse News Service · May 1
Fix the Court urges federal judiciary to ban prediction market use
8 articles · Updated · Courthouse News Service · May 1
In letters to the Supreme Court and Administrative Office, director Gabe Roth cited recent leak concerns and proposed an ethics-code addendum or advisory opinion covering judges, justices and staff.
He argued betting on case outcomes could breach judicial conduct rules and let insiders profit from privileged information, though a ban would not stop leaks to outside traders.
The push follows the Senate's unanimous vote to bar lawmakers and staff from prediction markets and a US soldier's indictment over more than $400,000 in alleged profits tied to Venezuela bets.
Beyond personal profit, could officials' betting on war leak secret military plans to our enemies?
As officials use offshore crypto platforms, can new insider trading rules ever be truly enforced?
The Van Dyke Case and the $60 Billion Prediction Market Crackdown: Legal and Regulatory Challenges in 2026
Overview
In 2026, a landmark insider trading scandal involving U.S. Army Master Sergeant Gannon Ken Van Dyke, who used classified information to profit on Polymarket, triggered swift action across government and industry. The U.S. Senate responded by unanimously banning senators and staff from trading on prediction markets, while advocacy group Fix the Court pushed for similar restrictions on the judiciary. Polymarket updated its terms to prohibit trading with confidential information and partnered with Chainalysis to enhance surveillance. These events spurred legislative efforts, including bills introduced by Congress and state-level bans like California's executive order, reflecting a broad commitment to safeguard market integrity and public trust amid growing concerns over insider threats in prediction markets.