California tribes v. Kalshi and Robinhood: Allegations, Court Orders and Status

On September 16, 2026 the Ninth Circuit held in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi, No. 25-7504, that Kalshi's sports event contracts offered on tribal land are likely class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). On November 4, 2026 the district court enjoined Kalshi from offering them on two tribes' lands.

This is an injunction suit brought by tribes, not a class action, so no payout, claim form or deadline exists. The ruling does not decide Kalshi's status elsewhere in California, and per press reports it does not expressly bind the Robinhood defendants.

Holdings from the Ninth Circuit opinion; the November 4 order is read from a press-hosted PACER copy and one tracker dates it November 5.

What this case is about

Blue Lake Rancheria et al. v. Kalshi, Inc. is a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:25-cv-06162-JSC, before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.

Its appeal is Ninth Circuit No. 25-7504, decided by Chief Judge Murguia and Judges McKeown and Paez. A complaint states one side's allegations; only the court's orders decide anything.

What the tribes allege

The tribes allege that sports event contracts offered to users on their lands are unauthorized class III gaming that violates their gaming ordinances and secretarial procedures, and that Kalshi's advertising that sports betting is "legal in all 50 States" is false.

The district court's order of April 21, 2026 (Doc. 81) lists five claims in the complaint.

Those claims are IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii), the tribal gaming ordinances, RICO, sovereignty and Lanham Act false advertising. RICO was not part of the injunction motion. The case is one of the prediction market lawsuits we track.

Why IGRA is the statute at issue

IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii), lets a tribe sue to enjoin class III gaming on its lands that violates its compact or procedures. That is why the dispute turns on where a contract is entered, not on Kalshi's federal registration.

The district court saw it the other way. On November 10, 2025 (Doc. 71) it held that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and the Commodity Exchange Act govern Kalshi's contracts, not IGRA. Courts elsewhere split on the federal question, which is why readers ask: are sports event contracts swaps?

Who is covered

The case is brought by tribes, not players, so no player is a class member and the injunction protects only the tribal lands it names.

The plaintiff tribes and the lands the order covers

Blue Lake Rancheria and Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians are the tribes covered by the November 4 injunction.

Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians was a district-court plaintiff and left the appeal by joint stipulation after oral argument, without prejudice (Dkt. 80, 83). Rapport and Marston (Lester J. Marston) represent the tribes; Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP and Milbank LLP represent Kalshi.

Who is not covered: players, other tribes, Robinhood

Players in the rest of California, other tribes and, per press reports, the Robinhood entities are not expressly covered by the injunction. The press account is secondary, while the order copy lists Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX only.

Kalshi remains available statewide except for sports contracts on the two tribes' lands. For the statewide picture, see Kalshi and gambling lawsuits in California.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists: the tribes sued for an injunction, no class is involved, and the orders in the record award no damages, create no fund and have no claim form or administrator. Filing a claim is free in every case on this site, and GamblingLawsuits.org is not a law firm and not a claims administrator.

What happens next

The case returns to Judge Corley, with boundary maps due November 13, 2026 and a Kalshi compliance report due within 21 days of November 4, 2026. That puts the report at about November 25, 2026, a date we derived rather than one the court set.

Remand: maps, compliance report and the rest of the case

On remand the injunction is a preliminary one, and the motions to dismiss that were pending before the stay remain unresolved (Dkts. 67 and 68). On April 21, 2026 the court vacated the April 30 hearing on them, and on May 22, 2026 it stayed the case (Doc. 87) until the Ninth Circuit ruled.

The tribes and Kalshi supported that stay and Robinhood opposed it. Whether Kalshi seeks further review is not confirmed in the court record as of November 14, 2026.

What it means for players

This ruling does not change Kalshi's status outside the two tribes' lands in California. It decides a preliminary-injunction appeal on likelihood of success, not a final judgment on the merits.

Other courts have gone different ways. The Third Circuit ruled for Kalshi on April 6, 2026 (2 to 1), while the Ninth Circuit in the Nevada case (Assad, August 28, 2026) and the Sixth Circuit (September 25, 2026) ruled against it. Supreme Court petition No. 26-299 is pending.

Each state's position is the status of its court orders. The tracker of Kalshi legal status in every state shows them with dates.

Timeline

The case moved from a denied injunction in 2025 to a reversal in 2026 in about a year.

The July 2025 filing date rests on press; the court orders do not state it.

What the court has decided so far

Three decisions exist: the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction on November 10, 2025, the Ninth Circuit's reversal in part on September 16, 2026, and the injunction of November 4, 2026.

The Ninth Circuit opinion of September 16, 2026

A panel of Chief Judge Murguia and Judges McKeown (author) and Paez held that Kalshi's sports event contracts are class III gaming, that a contract entered from tribal land is located on Indian lands, and that the contracts violate the tribes' secretarial procedures and ordinances. The case was argued on July 10, 2026.

The court also held that neither the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act nor the Commodity Exchange Act's exclusive-jurisdiction clause displaces IGRA. It affirmed the district court's Lanham Act ruling and remanded the IGRA claim for the remaining injunction factors.

This is a likelihood-of-success holding on a preliminary-injunction appeal, not a final ruling that Kalshi's contracts are unlawful. The opinion is one of the pending appeals and high court gambling cases we follow as it moves.

The injunction of November 4, 2026

On November 4, 2026 Judge Corley enjoined Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX from offering sports contracts on the tribes' Indian lands. The listed sports include esports, chess and UFC, and the order refers to a status conference held that day (Dkt. 106).

We read the order from a PACER copy hosted by a sports-betting news site, and it is not yet on GovInfo. One tracker reports the injunction as granted on November 5, 2026; the order copy says November 4.

Documents and sources

Every date and holding comes from the Ninth Circuit's opinion, the district court's orders and the press-hosted copy of Dkt. 106 named here.

• Ninth Circuit opinion, No. 25-7504, primary, September 16, 2026.
• N.D. Cal. Doc. 71, primary, November 10, 2025.
• N.D. Cal. Doc. 81, primary, April 21, 2026.
• N.D. Cal. Doc. 87, primary, May 22, 2026.
• Dkt. 106, injunction, press-hosted PACER copy, November 4, 2026.
• crypto.news report of the injunction, secondary, November 6, 2026.
• Tribal Business News report of the filing, secondary, source of the filing date.

Related cases

Four related cases show how courts are treating tribal and federal-preemption arguments against Kalshi.

Other tribal suits against Kalshi and DraftKings

Other tribes have sued in Wisconsin, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Florida.

• Ho-Chunk Nation v. Kalshi (W.D. Wis. No. 3:25-cv-00698-wmc): the IGRA claim survived on May 11, 2026, and a tracker reports the Seventh Circuit accepted an appeal as No. 26-8020 on October 27, 2026.
• Mescalero Apache tribe v. Kalshi (D.N.M. No. 1:26-cv-01517): argued September 23, 2026, undecided per secondary reports.
• Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town v. Kalshi: a Muscogee Nation court suit, No. CV-2026-0173, filed October 30, 2026 per secondary reports.
• Seminole Tribe v. DraftKings Predictions (S.D. Fla. No. 0:26-cv-63156): filed October 8, 2026 per secondary reports.

Every case against the operator is listed on the page for Kalshi lawsuits.

Other Kalshi rulings that frame this one

Three other Kalshi cases decide the federal-preemption question this ruling avoids.

• Kalshi consolidated class action (S.D.N.Y.): the player class action, which has no payout.
• Kalshi v. Nevada Gaming Control Board: the Ninth Circuit Assad ruling of August 28, 2026.
• Kalshi v. Flaherty: the Third Circuit ruling for Kalshi of April 6, 2026.

The Robinhood defendants' other cases are on the Robinhood lawsuits page.

Questions people ask

What did the Ninth Circuit decide in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi?

It held, on September 16, 2026, that Kalshi's sports event contracts offered on tribal land are likely class III gaming under IGRA and sent the injunction question back to the district court. For the federal question, see how is Kalshi legal: the swaps question.

Is Kalshi banned in California?

No; only sports contracts on the Blue Lake and Chicken Ranch lands are barred. The statewide status sits on the page for Kalshi in California.

Which tribes are suing Kalshi?

Blue Lake Rancheria and Chicken Ranch Rancheria remain in the case. Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians left the appeal after argument.

Does this ruling apply to Robinhood?

Per press reports, the injunction names Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX only. The Robinhood entities remain defendants in the case.

Is there a payout or a class action?

No; the case is an injunction suit by tribes, and no payout exists. For how class action payouts are worked out elsewhere, see class action payout per person.

Is Kalshi legal where I live?

That depends on each state's court orders, not on a flat yes or no. Check is Kalshi legal in your state.

Has Kalshi appealed again?

No further review is confirmed in the record as of November 14, 2026. Whether Kalshi seeks rehearing or Supreme Court review is not confirmed in the court record.