Highlights

  • The Hyperliquid Policy Center filed an amicus brief in the US District Court for the District of Columbia backing the CFTC against CME's lawsuit.
  • Former US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar represented the group, arguing CME lacks legal standing to challenge the agency's approval of Kalshi's Bitcoin perpetual futures.
  • The brief's core argument: the CFTC's order expanded the market by bringing in new participants rather than diverting existing CME customers.
  • The case could set a precedent for how much room incumbent exchanges have to block future CFTC product approvals through litigation.

A New Player Enters the CME-CFTC Fight

The Hyperliquid Policy Center has filed an amicus brief in the US District Court for the District of Columbia urging the court to dismiss CME Group's lawsuit against the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, inserting the crypto derivatives platform's policy arm directly into one of the year's most consequential regulatory fights over US perpetual futures trading. CME, the world's largest derivatives marketplace, sued the CFTC in June after the agency approved Kalshi's Bitcoin perpetual futures contract for trading in the United States, arguing the approval exceeded the CFTC's authority. The Hyperliquid Policy Center's filing sides squarely with the regulator, framing CME's suit as an attempt by an incumbent exchange to slow down competitive products it did not itself bring to market.

The brief, filed on behalf of the Hyperliquid Policy Center by former US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, now at Cooley LLP, identifies two central flaws in CME's case. First, it argues CME is relying on a theory of competitor standing that generally requires a plaintiff to show government action intensified competition in an existing market and caused a direct economic injury, a bar the group says CME's own facts do not clear since Kalshi was already a CFTC-regulated exchange operating since 2020. Second, it argues CME's interests fall outside the zone of interests protected by the specific provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act it is invoking, making it, in the group's words, an unsuitable challenger to bring this particular claim at all. Prelogar's filing was pointed in its framing, writing that CME, "once a titan of innovation," now advances a novel theory of standing that would, if accepted, mean "the pace of progress will slow to a crawl," according to The Block's reporting on the filing.

Why the Case Extends Beyond One Product

Related: HYPE Surges 19% as Trump Says CFTC Is Working to Bring Hyperliquid to the US

The dispute's stakes reach well past a single Bitcoin perpetual futures product. If CME succeeds in establishing that an incumbent exchange can sue to block a CFTC-approved product simply because it introduces new competition, the Hyperliquid Policy Center warns that future agency approvals of innovative derivatives products would face routine litigation from exchanges resisting change, effectively handing incumbents a veto over the CFTC's own regulatory judgment. That argument echoes the CFTC's own position in the case; the agency has previously dismissed CME's lawsuit as "much ado about nothing" in its own court filings, framing the litigation as an attempt to relitigate a settled regulatory decision rather than raise a genuine legal defect.

For Hyperliquid specifically, the outcome carries direct commercial relevance. The platform has built its business around onchain perpetual futures trading and has been pushing for a clearer regulatory path into the US market, a process that runs through the same CFTC framework CME is now challenging. A ruling that narrows the CFTC's ability to approve new perpetual futures products, or that opens the door to standing challenges from any incumbent exchange, would complicate that path regardless of how Hyperliquid's own specific market-access efforts, including its route into US perpetuals through Bitnomial, ultimately play out.

What Happens Next in the Case

The case now moves to the district court's consideration of the CFTC's and amici's arguments for dismissal, with no formal ruling date yet set as of this filing. A dismissal would leave the CFTC's approval of Kalshi's Bitcoin perpetual futures product intact and would likely be read across the industry as a signal that the agency has broad discretion to approve novel derivatives products without facing successful standing challenges from competing exchanges. If the court instead allows CME's suit to proceed, expect the case to move into a more detailed merits phase examining the CFTC's original approval process, a stage that could stretch the dispute well into 2027 and inject fresh uncertainty into the broader push to bring perpetual futures trading onshore in the US.

FAQ

What is the Hyperliquid Policy Center asking the court to do?
It filed an amicus brief asking the US District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss CME Group's lawsuit against the CFTC over its approval of Kalshi's Bitcoin perpetual futures contract.

Why does the Hyperliquid Policy Center say CME lacks standing?
It argues the CFTC's approval expanded the market by bringing in new participants rather than diverting CME's existing customers, and that CME's interests fall outside the legal provisions it is citing.

Who represented the Hyperliquid Policy Center in the filing?
Former US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, now at law firm Cooley LLP, represented the group in the amicus brief.

Why does this lawsuit matter beyond Kalshi's Bitcoin product?
A ruling favoring CME could let incumbent exchanges routinely sue to block future CFTC-approved derivatives products, while a dismissal would reinforce the agency's discretion to approve innovative products like onchain perpetual futures.