New Mexico

Last verified September 27, 2026

By the Legal Sportsbooks US editorial team

New Mexico

Retail only

Legal since

October 16, 2018 (tribal retail)

Minimum age

21 (at tribal casinos)

Regulator

Tribal gaming agencies (New Mexico Gaming Control Board oversees compacts)

Licensed apps

None

State law

25 U.S.C. 2710 (IGRA) and tribal Class III compacts

Is sports betting legal in New Mexico?

In person at tribal casinos, yes, for bettors 21 and older. New Mexico has no sports betting statute and no online or mobile betting. Tribes run sportsbooks under their Class III gaming compacts with the state, which cover every form of gaming in the federal Class III definition, and no state official has challenged that reading. Santa Ana Star Casino took the first bet on October 16, 2018.

Where you can bet

Legal Sports Report counted six tribal sportsbooks in September 2026. They are Legends Sportsbook at Santa Ana Star (Pueblo of Santa Ana), the BetMGM Sportsbook at Isleta Resort & Casino (Pueblo of Isleta), Stadium 66 & Caesars Sportsbook at Route 66 Casino (Pueblo of Laguna), the Caesars-powered Sportsbook at the Inn at Inn of the Mountain Gods and a Thursday-to-Sunday book at Casino Apache (both Mescalero Apache Tribe), and the book at Buffalo Thunder (Pueblo of Pojoaque). Each book sets its own rules on University of New Mexico and New Mexico State games: Santa Ana Star doesn't take them, and Isleta does.

Each tribe's gaming agency regulates its own sportsbook. The New Mexico Gaming Control Board monitors compact compliance through its State Gaming Representative and doesn't license sportsbooks. Compact revenue sharing is figured only on Adjusted Net Win from gaming machines, at 2% to 10.75% depending on the tribe's volume and the year, so the state gets no share of sports betting revenue. The board's five racetrack casinos (Ruidoso Downs, The Downs at Albuquerque, Sunland Park, SunRay Park in Farmington and Zia Park in Hobbs) have slot machines but no sportsbooks.

How New Mexico legalized sports betting

Compacts and the 1990s court fights

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 allows Class III gaming on tribal land only under a compact with the state, and the federal definition at 25 C.F.R. 502.4 lists "any sports betting." Gary Johnson won the 1994 governor's race promising compacts, and on February 13, 1995 he signed 13 identical ones, which Interior approved that spring. The same 1994 ballot carried an amendment for a lottery and video gambling that the state Supreme Court later voided for joining two issues in one question.

On July 13, 1995, the New Mexico Supreme Court held in State ex rel. Clark v. Johnson that Johnson had no authority to sign the compacts without the Legislature, and that they allowed more gaming than state law permitted. The Tenth Circuit followed that ruling in Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Kelly (104 F.3d 1546, January 10, 1997), holding that Interior's approval couldn't revive compacts void from the start. The Legislature enacted the compacts in 1997, and they were re-signed and re-approved. The Gaming Control Act, NMSA 60-2E, dates from the same year and limits non-tribal gaming to forms it licenses.

The 2015 compact

Successor compacts were signed in 2001 and 2007, and the form in force now dates to 2015. Several New Mexico versions took effect by operation of law on June 22, 2015, when Interior let its 45-day review period lapse, and a December 22, 2016 Interior letter treated Santa Ana's the same way. The compact defines Class III Gaming as "all forms of gaming as defined in 25 U.S.C. § 2703(8), and 25 C.F.R. § 502.4" and lets each tribe conduct "any or all forms of Class III Gaming" on its land. It bars gaming by anyone under 21 (Section 4(B)(1)) and runs to June 30, 2037. Section 17 requires the state and tribes to reopen negotiations if internet gaming is authorized in New Mexico.

The 2018 launch

Five months after the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban in Murphy v. NCAA (May 14, 2018), Santa Ana Star opened a book with Las Vegas-based USBookmaking as risk manager. The first ticket, at noon on October 16, was a $30 moneyline bet on the Astros in Game 3 of the ALCS. USBookmaking called sports betting "permissible" under the tribe's compact. An attorney general's spokesman said the Pueblo of Santa Ana Gaming Regulatory Commission governed the book and that the office would monitor the compacts and work with the Legislature on oversight. Buffalo Thunder opened its book in March 2019, and other tribes followed.

Bills and opinions since 2018

No sports betting bill has passed. HB 101 of 2021, the New Mexico Lottery Educational Assistance Act from Reps. Raymundo Lara, Phelps Anderson and Randall Pettigrew and Sen. Steven Neville, would have had the lottery run sports wagering and table games at racetracks, with mobile betting statewide and a minimum age of 21. It went to the House Education Committee on January 19, 2021 and never moved. Senate Memorial 25 of 2022, from Sens. Craig Brandt and Ron Griggs, asked for a study of gaming in the state and was postponed indefinitely.

On February 26, 2025, Attorney General Raúl Torrez issued Opinion 2025-07, which found that the lottery's arrangement with the Jackpocket app was internet gaming that triggered Section 17. Mescalero Vice President Duane Duffy told lawmakers in July 2025 that Jackpocket had since stopped online sales. On June 23, 2026, Rep. John Block urged tribes to reopen the compact for statewide online betting, and Mescalero's general counsel said the tribe hadn't discussed that but was looking at the issue.

Sports betting court cases in New Mexico

Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico (2015 to 2017)

Pojoaque's 2005 compact expired on June 30, 2015, and the Pueblo kept Buffalo Thunder and Cities of Gold open while it sought federal gaming procedures instead of a new compact. The Gaming Control Board cited vendors doing business with the Pueblo on September 25, 2015, and the Pueblo asked the federal court for an injunction that day (D.N.M. No. 1:15-cv-0625). The district court granted a preliminary injunction on October 7, 2015, but later dismissed the case. On July 18, 2017, the Tenth Circuit affirmed (863 F.3d 1226), holding that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act didn't preempt the board's regulation of state-licensed vendors. In New Mexico v. Department of the Interior (854 F.3d 1207, April 21, 2017), it had already affirmed a ruling striking down the Interior rules Pojoaque relied on. Pojoaque's 2015-form compact took effect in 2017.

Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Kalshi (2026)

The Mescalero Apache Tribe and the Pueblos of Isleta, Pojoaque and Sandia sued Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX LLC in federal court on May 12, 2026 (D.N.M. No. 2:26-cv-01517). They claim Kalshi's sports contracts are Class III gaming offered on their land in violation of their compacts, their gaming ordinances and 25 U.S.C. 2710(d), open to users 18 and up, and that Kalshi could geofence tribal land. Three of the four also seek civil penalties. Kalshi moved to dismiss on June 24 and argues that the Commodity Exchange Act overrides the federal gaming act and the compacts. The tribes moved for a preliminary injunction on July 22. A coalition of more than 30 tribes and tribal groups filed an amicus brief for the tribes, and Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria and the Ho-Chunk Nation asked leave to file another. Judge Margaret Strickland heard both motions in Las Cruces on September 23, 2026 and took them under advisement.

State of New Mexico v. Kalshi (2026)

Torrez sued both Kalshi companies on June 4, 2026 in the First Judicial District Court in Santa Fe (No. D-101-CV-2026-01567). The complaint alleges unlicensed online sports betting in violation of the Gaming Control Act and the Criminal Code's gambling article (NMSA 30-19), a public nuisance under 30-19-8 and 30-8-8, and wagering by 18 to 20 year olds. It seeks an injunction against Kalshi's sports-related contracts. Kalshi removed the case to federal court on June 8 (D.N.M. No. 1:26-cv-01857). The state moved to remand on July 8, noting that other district courts had sent similar state cases back, and briefing closed on August 18. The motion is pending before Chief Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales, and Kalshi's answer isn't due until 21 days after he rules.

United States and CFTC v. New Mexico (2026)

Eight days after the state's suit, the United States and the CFTC sued the state, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, Torrez and Gaming Control Board members on June 12, 2026 (D.N.M. No. 1:26-cv-01912). They argue that sports event contracts on designated contract markets are swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and that the state's suit against Kalshi is preempted. The CFTC moved for a preliminary injunction on June 18 and dropped the governor and board members on June 29, leaving the state and Torrez. The state moved to dismiss on July 16. Both motions were fully briefed by August 10, and the docket shows no ruling from Chief Judge Gonzales as of September 27.

Polymarket, Novig and Underdog v. Torrez (2026)

Three designated contract markets have sued Torrez and board officials on preemption grounds. QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US filed on June 30, 2026 (No. 1:26-cv-02100). On August 14 Judge David H. Urias granted a joint motion to stay the case for 12 months, under which the board officials are dismissed and the state agreed not to bring enforcement over Polymarket US's sports contracts until 14 days after the stay ends. Ludlow Exchange, LLC d/b/a Novig filed on August 6 (No. 1:26-cv-02576) and got the same terms from Judge Strickland on September 2, with the stay running to August 13, 2027 and position statements due July 30, 2027. Both stays wait on the CFTC case, which the parties said will likely present a related preemption question. Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. and UDM, LLC d/b/a Underdog Predict filed on September 8 (No. 1:26-cv-02935), and summonses were issued the next day.

The Tenth Circuit and other appeals

New Mexico is in the Tenth Circuit, which hasn't decided the preemption question. In Utah, Judge Robert Shelby ruled on August 4, 2026 that the Commodity Exchange Act doesn't preempt enforcement of Utah's gambling laws against Kalshi and granted the state summary judgment. Kalshi appealed (No. 26-4100), and on September 8 Judges Hartz and Kelly denied its motion for an injunction pending appeal. Elsewhere, the Third Circuit ruled for Kalshi against New Jersey on April 6, 2026 (No. 25-1922), and the Ninth Circuit ruled against it in Nevada on August 28 (KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad, No. 25-7516). Torrez signed the March 10, 2026 brief of Ohio, New Jersey and 37 other states backing Nevada. New Jersey's petition, Flaherty v. KalshiEX, LLC (No. 26-299), is pending at the Supreme Court, with Kalshi's response due November 9, 2026.

Prediction markets and daily fantasy

We found no cease-and-desist letters from New Mexico; its fight runs through the court cases above. For now the state has agreed in court not to act against Polymarket US or Novig while their stays run, and no court has barred it from acting against Kalshi or Underdog. Novig, the trade name of Ludlow Exchange, LLC, which the CFTC designated as a contract market on June 16, 2026, requires traders to be 21 with ID, and its eligibility page excludes only Nevada, Arizona and Michigan. Kalshi accepts users from 18.

We found no New Mexico law that licenses daily fantasy contests. Legal Sports Report lists PrizePicks and Underdog among the fantasy operators open to New Mexico players.

Help with a gambling problem

The New Mexico Council on Problem Gambling runs a 24/7 helpline at 1-800-572-1142, and its site also lists 1-800-GAMBLER.

Sources

Common questions

How we track and verify state laws

What does Legal Sportsbooks US track?

Every state's legal status, the date betting became legal, the minimum age, the regulator and the licensed apps, plus the legal history and court cases behind them, for all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Our page on how we track and verify state laws explains the details.

What do the statuses mean?

Online and retail means licensed mobile apps and in-person sportsbooks both operate. Online only means betting happens through licensed apps, with no retail sportsbooks. Retail only means you can bet in person at licensed venues, but there's no statewide app. Not legal means no licensed sportsbooks operate. Legislation pending means a bill or ballot measure is moving, but betting hasn't launched. Not yet verified means we haven't confirmed the state's current status.

Can I bet on sports where I live?

The rules follow where you are when you place the bet. Licensed apps use geolocation to confirm you're inside a state where they can operate, and some states limit betting to certain premises. Find your state in the state index, or read our guide to location rules.

How old do you have to be to bet on sports?

It's 21 in 33 of the 40 jurisdictions with legal sports betting and 18 in five: Washington, D.C., Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Wyoming. In North Dakota and Washington, the tribal casino sets the age.

How current is the tracker?

State laws and licenses change, so every state entry records the date it was last verified. If a status looks out of date, the state regulator's website has the official answer.

Is this legal advice?

No. We summarize public information about state sports betting laws. Confirm the rules with your state regulator before you bet, and don't wager more than you can afford to lose.