--- title: "United States gambling licensing, cost and supervision | advennt.io" canonical: https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/united-states/ source_html: /jurisdictions/us/index.html description: "United States gambling regulation by game: 1 restricted · 15 uncertain · 4 not yet assessed." generated_at: 2026-10-26T19:22:25Z content_sha256: 2b388c350a871a12c07374592438742d532d11bdb7431819ac40e14462834ace generator: "fe-fleet/md-twin@1.0" --- # United States gambling licensing, cost and supervision | advennt.io [Jurisdictions](/jurisdictions/) › United States # United States Open in full (free) Federal layer Enter state-by-state in high-value markets with a federal AML overlay; there is no single federal licence. [1 restricted · 15 uncertain · 4 not yet assessed → 20 classes](#products) Collected 25 Oct 2026 · Published 25 Oct 2026 · Changed 25 Oct 2026 [PDF](report.pdf) [Compare](/compare/?j=united-states) Jurisdiction scope: United States (Federal) [Alabama](/jurisdictions/alabama/)[Alaska](/jurisdictions/alaska/)[Arizona](/jurisdictions/arizona/)[Arkansas](/jurisdictions/arkansas/)[California](/jurisdictions/california/)[Colorado](/jurisdictions/colorado/)[Connecticut](/jurisdictions/connecticut/)[Delaware](/jurisdictions/delaware/)[Florida](/jurisdictions/florida/)[Georgia](/jurisdictions/georgia/)[Hawaii](/jurisdictions/hawaii/)[Idaho](/jurisdictions/idaho/)[Illinois](/jurisdictions/illinois/)[Indiana](/jurisdictions/indiana/) ## Can we offer our product? Every product class, in fixed taxonomy order. The band is what you can do; where the recorded legal status says something the band does not, it is shown beside the product. ### Player products - CasinoReserved to sub-national authority · Models agree?Uncertain - PokerReserved to sub-national authority · Models agree?Uncertain - BingoReserved to sub-national authority · Models agree?Uncertain - LotteryReserved to sub-national authority?Uncertain - Sports bettingReserved to sub-national authority?Uncertain - Other event bettingReserved to sub-national authority · Models agree?Uncertain - Horse and greyhound racing betting–Not yet assessed - Esports bettingReserved to sub-national authority · Models agree?Uncertain - Exchange bettingReserved to sub-national authority · Models agree?Uncertain - Pool betting–Not yet assessed - Virtual event bettingReserved to sub-national authority · Models agree?Uncertain - Fantasy sportsReserved to sub-national authority?Uncertain - Skill gamesReserved to sub-national authority · Models agree?Uncertain - Prediction markets–Not yet assessed - SweepstakesGrey zone?Uncertain - Free play–Not yet assessed ### Supply roles - Software / B2BReserved to sub-national authority?Uncertain - Affiliate marketingReserved to sub-national authority?Uncertain - Payments for gamblingRRestricted ### Settlement rail - Crypto gamblingGrey zone?Uncertain Class-level certainty is graded for 8 of 20 classes. ## Board briefing The US federal layer issues no gambling licence; entry is state-by-state under a federal boundary of Wire Act, UIGEA and FinCEN AML. #### What has changed - Wire Act confined to sports wagering (1st Cir. 2021; D.R.I. 2022); FinCEN issued AML modernisation NPRMs in 2024 and April 2026; casino AML enforcement momentum returned in 2024. #### What to do now - Plan multi-state entry, confine online sports wagering intrastate, build a FinCEN-compliant BSA/AML program, and ensure UIGEA-compliant state-gated payments. #### What to watch - Possible Supreme Court resolution of Wire Act scope if a circuit split emerges; finalisation of the April 2026 FinCEN AML effectiveness rule; further state iGaming legalisation. ## 11 answers, each dated and graded The weather grades favourability for an operator, not legality: legality is the product table above. The left rule is our confidence: solid confirmed, dashed probable, dotted uncertain. 01 · What kind of market is this? ### Overview Mixed Two separate developments reset the market structure this period. A CFTC interim final rule, effective 19 October 2026, excludes state- or tribal-licensed casino-style gambling products not traded on a multilateral market from the federal swap definition, while a companion proposed rule would bring … Full analysis · 140 words Two separate developments reset the market structure this period. A CFTC interim final rule, effective 19 October 2026, excludes state- or tribal-licensed casino-style gambling products not traded on a multilateral market from the federal swap definition, while a companion proposed rule would bring sports, politics, culture and weather event contracts within that same definition — a move that bears directly on whether exchange-traded platforms operate as federally regulated derivatives markets or as state-regulated gambling. Separately, Oklahoma's SB1589 criminalises operating or promoting a dual-currency sweepstakes site from 1 November 2026, prompting operators including ACE Casino, Baba Casino and Stake to exit that state's market in October 2026. Neither development touches conventional state-licensed sportsbook or casino regimes directly, but together they mark an active period of boundary-setting between federal commodities regulation, state criminal law, and the gambling-licensing frameworks that otherwise remain unchanged. - No federal licence — 50+ separate state regimes - Wire Act keeps online sports wagering intrastate - Extreme tax rates in some states (NY 51% sports, PA 36%) - Federal AML/BSA compliance lift Confirmed AI-generated [Read full analysis & tables →](overview/) 02 · Can we get a licence? ### Licensing and regulation Mixed This cycle's licensing-and-regulation development centers on Wisconsin, where Act 247, the durable primary legislation authorizing statewide mobile sports betting through the tribal gaming compact system, faces a newly filed state constitutional challenge from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liber… Full analysis · 153 words This cycle's licensing-and-regulation development centers on Wisconsin, where Act 247, the durable primary legislation authorizing statewide mobile sports betting through the tribal gaming compact system, faces a newly filed state constitutional challenge from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty on behalf of two taxpayer associations. The suit alleges the statute violates Wisconsin's 1993 constitutional amendment restricting expansion of gambling and the state's Equal Protection Doctrine, and seeks to block new tribal compacts and the statewide mobile betting launch. No ruling has issued, and Act 247 remains in force and operative pending the outcome, meaning the licensing framework itself has not yet been altered. The challenge nonetheless introduces a live source of uncertainty for the tribal operator coalition relying on the compact structure, and the mixed durability of the outcome, an operative statute facing a constitutional-mechanism attack, means the practical licensing picture in Wisconsin could shift materially depending on how the litigation resolves. Confirmed AI-generated [Read full analysis & tables →](licensing/) 03 · How hard is entry, really? ### Market entry in practice Mixed There is no single federal entry. Operators must enter state-by-state, each with its own licensing, local-presence, capital and bottleneck profile. Federal-layer requirements (FinCEN registration, BSA program, IRS withholding setup) overlay every state entry. B2B suppliers must license independently… Full analysis · 49 words There is no single federal entry. Operators must enter state-by-state, each with its own licensing, local-presence, capital and bottleneck profile. Federal-layer requirements (FinCEN registration, BSA program, IRS withholding setup) overlay every state entry. B2B suppliers must license independently in each state. Lead times and capital vary widely by state. Probable AI-generated [Read full analysis & tables →](market-entry/) 04 · What do the licences cost? ### Licence fees Mixed There are no federal gambling licensing fees because the federal level issues no gambling licences. Licensing and application fees are levied at state level (e.g. PA standalone iGaming licence ~$10M). Federal-layer costs are compliance-driven (FinCEN registration, BSA program costs). Probable AI-generated [Read full analysis & tables →](fees/) 05 · What is the tax take? ### Tax Mixed There is no federal gambling tax on GGR. Players pay federal income tax on net winnings; operators pay corporate income tax (21%). IRS Form W-2G withholding is 24% on winnings above $5,000 or where proceeds are at least 300x the wager. No federal VAT/GST applies; state sales taxes generally do not a… Full analysis · 74 words There is no federal gambling tax on GGR. Players pay federal income tax on net winnings; operators pay corporate income tax (21%). IRS Form W-2G withholding is 24% on winnings above $5,000 or where proceeds are at least 300x the wager. No federal VAT/GST applies; state sales taxes generally do not apply to gambling services. Effective tax burden is set at state level and can be globally extreme (NY 51% sports wagering, PA 36%). Confirmed AI-generated [Read full analysis & tables →](taxes/) 06 · Can we move player money? ### Payments and banking Mixed UIGEA (31 U.S.C. §5363) prohibits payment processors from knowingly accepting funds in connection with unlawful internet gambling, requiring blocking of transactions to unlicensed operators. MCC 7995 treatment varies: in regulated states acquirers can process; in prohibited states processors block. … Full analysis · 65 words UIGEA (31 U.S.C. §5363) prohibits payment processors from knowingly accepting funds in connection with unlawful internet gambling, requiring blocking of transactions to unlicensed operators. MCC 7995 treatment varies: in regulated states acquirers can process; in prohibited states processors block. Licensed-state operators access cards, e-wallets, bank transfers and (increasingly) some crypto rails. PSPs falling within FinCEN's scope carry BSA obligations. Banking risk is moderate and state-dependent. Probable AI-generated [Read full analysis & tables →](payments/) 07 · Can we advertise? ### Marketing Mixed Advertising is regulated primarily at the state level, with federal FTC oversight of deceptive practices and increasing scrutiny from state attorneys general. There is no federal gambling advertising ban; restrictions on bonuses, affiliates and sponsorship vary by state. Federal-layer exposure is ma… Full analysis · 49 words Advertising is regulated primarily at the state level, with federal FTC oversight of deceptive practices and increasing scrutiny from state attorneys general. There is no federal gambling advertising ban; restrictions on bonuses, affiliates and sponsorship vary by state. Federal-layer exposure is mainly via FTC consumer-protection authority and the CFPB. Probable AI-generated [Read full analysis & tables →](marketing/) 08 · What must the platform meet? ### Technical compliance Mixed Technical standards (RNG, RTP, geolocation, hosting) are set at state level — there is no federal technical compliance standard for online gambling. Federal-layer requirements are AML/BSA recordkeeping and reporting (CTR/SAR via FinCEN BSA E-Filing). Geolocation is mandated at state level to enforce… Full analysis · 57 words Technical standards (RNG, RTP, geolocation, hosting) are set at state level — there is no federal technical compliance standard for online gambling. Federal-layer requirements are AML/BSA recordkeeping and reporting (CTR/SAR via FinCEN BSA E-Filing). Geolocation is mandated at state level to enforce intrastate-only operation consistent with the Wire Act. Common state testing standards include GLI and BMM. Probable AI-generated [Read full analysis & tables →](technical/) 09 · Can we ship through apps and platforms? ### Distribution and platforms Mixed The cycle's distribution-platform-rules development is the CFTC's staff letter mandating platform-level review of odds presentation for CFTC-regulated event-contract entities. The letter warns against sportsbook-style American odds formatting and requires regulated firms to confirm receipt and to re… Full analysis · 128 words The cycle's distribution-platform-rules development is the CFTC's staff letter mandating platform-level review of odds presentation for CFTC-regulated event-contract entities. The letter warns against sportsbook-style American odds formatting and requires regulated firms to confirm receipt and to review pricing displays, marketing materials, and affiliate practices by August 31, 2026. This is a fragile guidance instrument rather than a codified rule, but it imposes a concrete, deadline-bound compliance obligation on how CFTC-regulated prediction-market platforms present pricing and market their products, extending regulatory attention beyond core product classification into the presentation layer that shapes customer-facing platform design. The obligation did not previously exist in the operational baseline and represents a new platform-facing compliance vector distinct from, but converging with, the state-level marketing and odds-disclosure standards long applied to conventional sportsbook operators. Probable AI-generated [Read full analysis & tables →](distribution/) 10 · How hard does the regulator enforce? ### Enforcement Mixed Enforcement activity this period centres on litigation rather than regulator-issued penalties. Novig and Crypto.com sued Missouri, Polymarket sued Ohio alleging that the state's sports-betting rules and enforcement efforts are discriminatory, and Utah sued Kalshi, its affiliates and two Susquehanna … Full analysis · 165 words Enforcement activity this period centres on litigation rather than regulator-issued penalties. Novig and Crypto.com sued Missouri, Polymarket sued Ohio alleging that the state's sports-betting rules and enforcement efforts are discriminatory, and Utah sued Kalshi, its affiliates and two Susquehanna trading firms, all as of 23 October 2026 contesting the application of state gambling law to exchange-traded sports contracts. This is active, multi-front litigation across three states running concurrently with the CFTC's own rulemaking on the swap-definition boundary, and it has not been resolved this period. Separately, Oklahoma's SB1589 creates a distinct and more severe enforcement exposure: operating or promoting a dual-currency sweepstakes site becomes a felony from 1 November 2026, a criminal rather than civil-penalty mechanism, and its reach extends to free-to-play and sweeps-coin models bundled with a cash-purchasable second currency. Operators including ACE Casino, Baba Casino and Stake have already begun exiting the Oklahoma market in anticipation of that date. No enforcement event touching conventional state-licensed sportsbook or casino operators was evidenced this period. Confirmed AI-generated 14 enforcement events [Read full analysis & tables →](enforcement/) 11 · What is coming? ### Outlook Mixed The federal level issues no gambling licences, and a federal iGaming bill — though repeatedly introduced — is unlikely to pass near-term. The dominant federal uncertainty is the Wire Act's scope: the First Circuit (2021) and Fifth Circuit (2002) confine §1084 to sports wagering, and the Rhode Island… Full analysis · 93 words The federal level issues no gambling licences, and a federal iGaming bill — though repeatedly introduced — is unlikely to pass near-term. The dominant federal uncertainty is the Wire Act's scope: the First Circuit (2021) and Fifth Circuit (2002) confine §1084 to sports wagering, and the Rhode Island District Court (2022) reinforced this, but there is no nationally binding precedent. A contrary ruling in another circuit could force Supreme Court resolution. FinCEN's 2024/2026 AML NPRMs signal a tightening federal AML posture. State-by-state expansion (IN, IL, NY considering iGaming) continues to drive the market. Probable AI-generated [Read full analysis & tables →](outlook/) Evidential record & source register 2 enforcement · 25 red flags · 10 sources · Expand full record ## Enforcement record What the regulator has actually done, newest first. 2 recorded events. - 1 Jan 2024FinCEN / DOJ · US casinos with AML failuresProbableSource 8 · T3Source 4 · T2 - 31 Jul 2012U.S. Department of Justice · PokerStars (offshore operator)ProbableSource 8 · T3 ## What gets operators fined 25 red flags (11 high, 9 medium, 1 low) and 5 controls that address them. - highAssuming a single federal licence existsThere is no federal gambling licence; entry is state-by-state.Source 6 · T3 - highLate or missing CTR/SAR filingsCTR (>$10,000) and SAR (≥$5,000) reporting are mandatory federal obligations.Source 2 · T1 - highAssuming B2B suppliers need no licenceB2B supplier licensing is required independently in each state.Source 6 · T3 - highUnderestimating extreme state tax ratesNY 51% sports and PA 36% rates are margin killers.Source 10 · T3 - highRelying on Wire Act narrowness nationallyOnly First and Fifth Circuits bind; a contrary ruling could change exposure.Source 6 · T3 - highInadequate geolocationGeolocation is mandatory to enforce intrastate operation.Source 6 · T3 - highOperating in tribal gaming areas without a compactIGRA Class III requires a tribal-state compact and NIGC oversight.Source 2 · T1 - highCard processing in prohibited statesMCC 7995 is blocked in prohibited states per UIGEA.Source 10 · T3 - highOffering crypto gambling federallyCrypto gambling sits in a grey/closed federal zone with AML exposure.Source 10 · T3 - highUnderestimating returning casino AML enforcementEnforcement momentum returned in 2024 with multi-million-dollar fines.Source 8 · T3 - highUnderestimating multi-state capital intensity50+ separate entries plus federal AML overlay are capital-intensive.Source 6 · T3 - mediumIgnoring IRS W-2G withholding24% withholding on winnings >$5,000 or ≥300x wager is a federal requirement.Source 2 · T1 - mediumAssuming the 2026 FinCEN NPRM's proposed effectiveness-focused standard is already in forceThe April 2026 NPRM proposes a shift to effectiveness-focused programs that would require re-engineering if finalised; no final rule has yet been published.Source 9 · T3 - mediumDeceptive advertisingFTC and state AGs increasingly scrutinise gambling advertising.Source 8 · T3 - mediumIgnoring suitability/background investigationsState suitability reviews of beneficial owners are a key bottleneck.Source 6 · T3 - mediumAssuming a federal self-exclusion registerThere is no federal register; self-exclusion is state-by-state.Source 8 · T3 - mediumHub-jurisdiction licensees ignoring US reputational pressureUS licensees in MT/GI/IM face US-driven enforcement spillover.Source 8 · T3 - mediumApp-store submission without state gatingApple/Google gate real-money gambling to licensed states.Source 10 · T3 - mediumSweepstakes/social casino assumed safe federallyThese sit in a state-variable grey zone under lottery/consumer law.Source 10 · T3 - mediumOutsourced AML audit by unqualified firmIndependent testing must be conducted by gaming-AML-qualified reviewers.Source 4 · T2 - lowBanking on near-term federal iGaming legalisationFederal iGaming bills are introduced repeatedly but unlikely to pass.Source 6 · T3 - criticalOperating online sports wagering across state linesWire Act §1084 prohibits interstate transmission of sports bets.Source 1 · T1 - criticalProcessing payments for unlicensed gamblingUIGEA criminalises facilitation of unlawful internet gambling funding.Source 10 · T3 - criticalFailure to maintain an effective BSA/AML programCasinos >$1M GGR are financial institutions; $25,000/day penalty and criminal exposure.Source 4 · T2 - criticalServing US players from an offshore baseDOJ pursues offshore operators (e.g. PokerStars $731M settlement).Source 8 · T3 ### Controls - 001BSA/AML programWritten, risk-based AML program with designated compliance officer, internal controls, training and independent testing.Source 4 · T2 - 002CTR/SAR filing systemElectronic CTR (>$10,000/gaming day) and SAR (≥$5,000) filing via FinCEN BSA E-Filing.Source 2 · T1Source 3 · T1 - 003Geolocation enforcementMulti-factor geolocation to confine operation intrastate and to licensed states.Source 6 · T3 - 004UIGEA-compliant payment gatingState-gated payment rails with MCC 7995 blocking in prohibited states.Source 10 · T3 - 005Per-state licensing matrixTrack licensing, suitability and B2B requirements per state.Source 6 · T3 ## Worked scenarios 5 entry scenarios, each with the move we would make. #### An EU operator wants a single federal US online casino licence. No federal licence exists; the operator must license state-by-state (NJ, PA, MI, WV, CT, DE) and build a FinCEN BSA/AML program. Do this: Prioritise 1-2 high-value states (NJ/PA/MI), then expand; budget for multi-state duplication. Source 6 · T3 #### Operator plans interstate online sports wagering between two states. The Wire Act §1084 prohibits interstate transmission of sports bets; only intrastate operation is safe. Do this: Confine each state's sports wagering operation intrastate; do not pool sports liquidity across states. Source 1 · T1 Source 6 · T3 #### Online casino exceeds $1M GGR but has no AML program. It is a non-bank financial institution under the BSA; absence of an AML program risks $25,000/day penalties and criminal exposure. Do this: Implement a written risk-based BSA/AML program with CTR/SAR filing before launch. Source 4 · T2 #### PSP wants to process gambling payments nationally. UIGEA prohibits processing for unlicensed gambling; MCC 7995 must be blocked in prohibited states. Do this: Implement state-gated processing and block transactions to unlicensed operators. Source 10 · T3 #### Operator seeks online sports wagering in Florida via tribal route. Online sports wagering runs under the Seminole IGRA Class III compact with NIGC oversight and litigation history. Do this: Engage via the tribal compact framework; monitor ongoing litigation status. Source 2 · T1 ## What we looked for and could not find Confirmed absence is a finding of its own. These are the questions we searched and could not answer from a citable source, with the searches we ran. Never behind the paywall. Market opportunity. no single federal GGR figure is published because the market is state-by-state; aggregate national GGR not collected from a T1/T2 source. - searched: US total online gambling GGR 2025 - searched: federal aggregate iGaming revenue United States - searched: US sports wagering GGR national total - checked: americangaming.org Competitive landscape. no federal licensed-operator count exists; figures are per state and not aggregated at federal layer. - searched: US federal licensed gambling operator count - searched: national number of iGaming licensees US - searched: total US sports betting operators - checked: americangaming.org ## Source register Every source on a four-step tier scale. A claim is never shown at a stronger tier than the source it cites. 10 sources · 3 tier 1 · 2 tier 2 · 5 tier 3 No. Source Tier Verification 1 18-USC-1084 T1 of 4 Source 1 · Open in drawer → 2 31-CFR-1021-311 T1 of 4 Source 2 · Open in drawer → 3 FINCEN-CASINO-GUIDANCE T1 of 4 Source 3 · Open in drawer → 4 WLF-CASINO-ENF-2024 T2 of 4 Source 4 · Open in drawer → 5 FINCEN-NPRM-2024 T2 of 4 Source 5 · Open in drawer → 6 NH-LOTTERY-V-ROSEN T3 of 4 Source 6 · Open in drawer → 7 IGT-V-GARLAND T3 of 4 Source 7 · Open in drawer → 8 BSA-TITLE-31 T3 of 4 Source 8 · Open in drawer → 9 FINCEN-NPRM-2026 T3 of 4 Source 9 · Open in drawer → 10 MURPHY-V-NCAA T3 of 4 Source 10 · Open in drawer → ### Claims with their own provenance The Wire Act applies only to bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest. US-CP-001 · T3 of 4 (asserted T1, shown at its source's tier) · published 27 Jan 2021 · Confirmed Pipeline-sourced · From Advennt research · Rule detail not yet extracted Source 6 · T3 Casinos with annual gross gaming revenue over $1M are non-bank financial institutions subject to the BSA. US-CP-002 · T2 of 4 · published 25 Sep 2024 · Confirmed Pipeline-sourced · From Advennt research · Rule detail not yet extracted Source 4 · T2 ## Sub-national units Entry happens unit by unit here; the parent layer does not give one national answer. - US-AL[Alabama](/jurisdictions/alabama/) · 2 open · 12 closed · 4 uncertain · 2 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-AK[Alaska](/jurisdictions/alaska/) · 1 open · 1 restricted · 6 closed · 7 uncertain · 5 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-AZ[Arizona](/jurisdictions/arizona/) · 6 open · 2 restricted · 6 closed · 6 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-AR[Arkansas](/jurisdictions/arkansas/) · 4 open · 1 restricted · 5 closed · 6 uncertain · 4 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-CA[California](/jurisdictions/california/) · 4 open · 8 closed · 3 uncertain · 5 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-CO[Colorado](/jurisdictions/colorado/) · 7 open · 6 closed · 2 uncertain · 5 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-CT[Connecticut](/jurisdictions/connecticut/) · 4 open · 6 restricted · 4 closed · 1 uncertain · 5 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-DE[Delaware](/jurisdictions/delaware/) · 2 open · 1 restricted · 8 closed · 3 uncertain · 6 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-FL[Florida](/jurisdictions/florida/) · 1 open · 2 restricted · 9 closed · 5 uncertain · 3 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-GA[Georgia](/jurisdictions/georgia/) · 1 open · 14 closed · 2 uncertain · 3 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-HI[Hawaii](/jurisdictions/hawaii/) · 1 open · 17 closed · 2 uncertainAI research, not expert reviewed - US-ID[Idaho](/jurisdictions/idaho/) · 3 open · 2 restricted · 13 closed · 2 uncertainAI research, not expert reviewed - US-IL[Illinois](/jurisdictions/illinois/) · 6 open · 2 restricted · 7 closed · 1 uncertain · 4 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-IN[Indiana](/jurisdictions/indiana/) · 4 open · 2 restricted · 8 closed · 2 uncertain · 4 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-IA[Iowa](/jurisdictions/iowa/) · 7 open · 1 restricted · 5 closed · 1 uncertain · 6 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-KS[Kansas](/jurisdictions/kansas/) · 2 open · 4 restricted · 7 closed · 3 uncertain · 4 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-KY[Kentucky](/jurisdictions/kentucky/) · 6 restricted · 7 closed · 3 uncertain · 4 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-LA[Louisiana](/jurisdictions/louisiana/) · 5 open · 5 restricted · 7 closed · 2 uncertain · 1 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-ME[Maine](/jurisdictions/maine/) · 8 open · 3 restricted · 8 closed · 1 uncertainAI research, not expert reviewed - US-MD[Maryland](/jurisdictions/maryland/) · 6 open · 1 restricted · 7 closed · 1 uncertain · 5 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-MA[Massachusetts](/jurisdictions/massachusetts/) · 6 open · 3 restricted · 5 closed · 1 uncertain · 5 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-MI[Michigan](/jurisdictions/michigan/) · 5 open · 6 restricted · 4 closed · 2 uncertain · 3 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-MS[Mississippi](/jurisdictions/mississippi/) · 3 open · 2 restricted · 10 closed · 3 uncertain · 2 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-MT[Montana](/jurisdictions/montana/) · 7 open · 12 closed · 1 uncertainAI research, not expert reviewed - US-NE[Nebraska](/jurisdictions/nebraska/) · 3 open · 11 closed · 6 uncertainAI research, not expert reviewed - US-NH[New Hampshire](/jurisdictions/new-hampshire/) · 4 open · 3 restricted · 7 closed · 4 uncertain · 2 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-NM[New Mexico](/jurisdictions/new-mexico/) · 1 open · 1 restricted · 15 closed · 1 uncertain · 2 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-NY[New York](/jurisdictions/new-york/) · 7 open · 1 restricted · 6 closed · 6 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-NC[North Carolina](/jurisdictions/north-carolina/) · 5 open · 4 restricted · 5 closed · 2 uncertain · 4 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-ND[North Dakota](/jurisdictions/north-dakota/) · 4 open · 11 closed · 5 uncertainAI research, not expert reviewed - US-OH[Ohio](/jurisdictions/ohio/) · 7 open · 7 closed · 3 uncertain · 3 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-OK[Oklahoma](/jurisdictions/oklahoma/) · 2 open · 12 closed · 6 uncertainAI research, not expert reviewed - US-RI[Rhode Island](/jurisdictions/rhode-island/) · 5 open · 2 restricted · 9 closed · 4 uncertainAI research, not expert reviewed - US-SC[South Carolina](/jurisdictions/south-carolina/) · 2 open · 15 closed · 3 uncertainAI research, not expert reviewed - US-SD[South Dakota](/jurisdictions/south-dakota/) · 5 open · 1 restricted · 10 closed · 3 uncertain · 1 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-TX[Texas](/jurisdictions/texas/) · 2 open · 15 closed · 3 uncertainAI research, not expert reviewed - US-UT[Utah](/jurisdictions/utah/) · 1 open · 17 closed · 2 uncertainAI research, not expert reviewed - US-VA[Virginia](/jurisdictions/virginia/) · 8 open · 6 closed · 2 uncertain · 4 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-WA[Washington](/jurisdictions/washington/) · 5 open · 2 restricted · 12 closed · 1 uncertainAI research, not expert reviewed - US-DC[Washington, D.C.](/jurisdictions/district-of-columbia/) · 6 open · 1 restricted · 2 closed · 7 uncertain · 4 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-WV[West Virginia](/jurisdictions/west-virginia/) · 7 open · 3 restricted · 2 closed · 3 uncertain · 5 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed - US-WI[Wisconsin](/jurisdictions/wisconsin/) · 5 open · 1 restricted · 10 closed · 4 uncertainAI research, not expert reviewed - US-WY[Wyoming](/jurisdictions/wyoming/) · 4 open · 3 restricted · 3 closed · 5 uncertain · 5 not yet assessedAI research, not expert reviewed