Kalshi v. Nevada Gaming Control Board (federal): Allegations, Court Orders and Status

On August 28, 2026 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 3-0 that Kalshi had not shown that federal law preempts Nevada's gaming law as applied to its sports event contracts, and rehearing was denied in early November 2026.

The federal injunction that Kalshi first won had already been dissolved on November 24, 2025.

Kalshi's contracts are blocked in Nevada by a separate state-court order, not by this federal case. No money is at stake here: the case is a challenge to regulators, with no class, no fund and no claim form.

What this case is about

KalshiEX LLC v. Hendrick, now captioned KalshiEX LLC v. Assad, is a federal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW) and the Ninth Circuit (No. 25-7516) over whether federal law blocks Nevada from regulating Kalshi's sports event contracts. A complaint states one side's allegations; only the court's orders decide anything.

What Kalshi and Nevada each argue

The Nevada Gaming Control Board sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter on March 4, 2025; Kalshi sued on March 28, 2025, saying federal law, not Nevada law, governs its contracts. Kalshi relies on the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(A), and the Supremacy Clause.

The defendants are the Nevada Gaming Control Board, the Nevada Gaming Commission and Attorney General Aaron D. Ford, joined by the Nevada Resort Association as intervenor-defendant. The case is one of the prediction market lawsuits we track, and it produced the Ninth Circuit ruling described below.

The swaps question and why the Ninth Circuit answered it differently from the Third

Everything turns on whether a contract on a sports outcome is a swap on a CFTC-designated contract market; the Third Circuit said yes in April 2026, and the Ninth Circuit's August 2026 ruling went the other way, which created a circuit split. The Third Circuit decided Kalshi v. Flaherty (New Jersey) on April 6, 2026.

The Ninth Circuit's holding is narrow: on a preliminary-injunction record, Kalshi showed no likelihood that the Act preempts Nevada gaming law as applied to sports contracts.

The opinion records that sports contracts were over 90 percent of Kalshi's trades and 95 percent of its revenue in 2025. Our guide asks the question directly: are sports event contracts swaps?

Who is covered

No class exists, so nobody is covered or needs to join: the parties are Kalshi, the Nevada Gaming Control Board and Commission, the Attorney General and the intervening Nevada Resort Association. The case is a dispute between Kalshi and regulators, not a claim by customers.

What the ruling means for Nevada users is a separate question. Kalshi's sports, election and entertainment contracts are blocked in Nevada by a state-court order, described under Related cases; see gambling lawsuits in Nevada for the state status and every Nevada case.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case: it is Kalshi's challenge to Nevada regulators over whether federal law blocks Nevada's gaming law, with no class, no fund, no claim form and no claim deadline. No fund, fees or damages appear in the court record.

No claim form exists and this site never hosts one. Trading payouts on Kalshi itself are out of scope for this page.

What happens next

No date is set in this case; the next events are whether Kalshi petitions the Supreme Court and what the district court does with the remanded election-contract question. Kalshi's response in the separate New Jersey petition, No. 26-299, is due December 7, 2026.

Rehearing denied and the certiorari window

The Ninth Circuit denied panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in early November 2026; our sources give November 4 (Bransfield tracker, CDC Gaming) and November 3 (Focus Gaming News), and the order itself is not retrieved.

A certiorari petition is due 90 days after the denial, about February 2, 2027 if the denial was November 4 (derived). No petition from Kalshi is in the record.

The Third Circuit side of the split is already before the Court as No. 26-299, and the pending appeals and high court gambling cases tracker follows it.

The election-contract question sent back to the district court

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and remanded only the question of Kalshi's election contracts to the district court. No ruling on remand is in the record as of November 14, 2026.

Timeline

The case ran from a March 2025 cease-and-desist to a November 2026 denial of rehearing. Dates come from court orders unless a row says secondary or derived.

The exact day of the April 2025 injunction is not confirmed in the court record, and the rehearing denial is dated November 3 or November 4 depending on the source. We use the month for the first and show both dates for the second.

What the court has decided so far

Two courts have ruled on the preemption question in this case, and the second reversed the first: the district court first granted Kalshi an injunction and then dissolved it, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dissolution. No final judgment on the merits exists.

As of November 4, 2026 the status is appealed; no date is set. That date rests on trackers and CDC Gaming, not on a retrieved order.

The first injunction of April 2025 and its dissolution on November 24, 2025

In April 2025 Judge Andrew P. Gordon granted Kalshi a preliminary injunction (2025 WL 1073495), the first court win for sports event contracts; on November 24, 2025 he dissolved it, holding that sports event contracts are not swaps (817 F. Supp. 3d 1014). The exact day of the April order is not confirmed in the court record.

Before that, Judge Gordon denied Crypto.com a similar injunction, with the written order dated October 14, 2025 (815 F. Supp. 3d 1169). Kalshi's appeal was docketed on November 25, 2025, and a secondary source reports that a stay pending appeal was denied on December 16, 2025.

The dissolution turned on the same federal-state question that runs through every Kalshi case. Our guide on CFTC jurisdiction versus state gambling law explains how the two authorities collide.

The Ninth Circuit opinion of August 28, 2026

On August 28, 2026 the Ninth Circuit (No. 25-7516; Judges R. Nelson, Bade and Lee) affirmed 3-0, in an opinion by Judge R. Nelson with Judge Lee concurring, and held that Kalshi showed no likelihood that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts Nevada gaming law as applied to sports contracts. It remanded only the election-contract question.

The panel heard argument on April 16, 2026. The Board issued a press release on the day of the opinion, titled "Ninth Circuit rules in favor of Nevada."

The ruling is a decision on a preliminary-injunction record, about likelihood of success. It does not describe Kalshi as banned nationwide, and this page does not read it more broadly than the opinion states.

Documents and sources

Every date on this page comes from the Ninth Circuit opinion, the district and remand orders and the Board's press releases, listed here. Secondary sources are labeled.

• Ninth Circuit opinion, No. 25-7516, August 28, 2026 (primary)
• Order remanding to state court, D. Nev. ECF No. 45 (primary document hosted by the regulator; it is the removal in the state-court case)
• Nevada Gaming Control Board press releases, including "Ninth Circuit rules in favor of Nevada," August 28, 2026 (regulator)
• CDC Gaming report on the rehearing denial (secondary; order not retrieved)
• Bransfield tracker of Kalshi litigation (secondary; order not retrieved)
• CourtListener search for 2:25-cv-00575 (search page, not a docket)

Related cases

These cases show where Kalshi is actually blocked in Nevada and how the Ninth Circuit's ruling fits the national split.

Where Kalshi is blocked in Nevada: the state-court case

The federal case does not itself stop Kalshi; the Board's separate lawsuit in the First Judicial District Court in Carson City does. That court granted a preliminary injunction from the bench on April 3, 2026, covering sports, election and entertainment contracts, and the Nevada Supreme Court denied Kalshi's stay on July 1, 2026.

A stipulated order of July 24, 2026 sets a USD 120,000 per day penalty if a geofencing requirement is missed; whether the penalty was assessed is not confirmed in the court record.

• Nevada Gaming Control Board v. Kalshi (state enforcement)
• Nevada Gaming Control Board v. Polymarket
• Nevada Gaming Control Board v. Coinbase

The Board's cases against Polymarket and Coinbase run alongside the Kalshi case, and each has its own page.

The other Nevada petitions and the circuit split

Three petitions from the Ninth Circuit and Third Circuit rulings are before the Supreme Court, and two circuits have yet to rule.

Questions people ask

What did the Ninth Circuit decide in Kalshi v. Assad?

On August 28, 2026 a three-judge panel held 3-0 that Kalshi had not shown that federal law preempts Nevada's gaming law as applied to sports contracts and remanded only the election-contract question.

Why did the judge dissolve Kalshi's injunction?

Judge Gordon held on November 24, 2025 that sports event contracts are not swaps, after reaching the same view in Crypto.com's case. The legal question is explained in our guide on why courts disagree on swaps.

Is the Nevada case over, and will Kalshi go to the Supreme Court?

Not finally: the district court still has the election-contract remand, and a petition from Kalshi would be due about February 2, 2027 (derived); none is in the record. See the New Jersey case before the Supreme Court for the petition already pending.

Is Kalshi legal in Nevada?

Kalshi's sports, election and entertainment contracts are blocked in Nevada by the state-court injunction, which is the operative order; that describes the status of court orders, not a flat answer. See Nevada gambling lawsuits and Kalshi status for the full state picture.

Why is the case called Hendrick and also Assad?

The Ninth Circuit's caption is KalshiEX LLC v. Assad; the district court's caption was KalshiEX LLC v. Hendrick. Both names belong to the same case, docketed as 2:25-cv-00575 in the district court and No. 25-7516 on appeal.

Is there a Kalshi class action or settlement I can join?

No settlement and no class exist in this case, so there is nothing to claim. Filing a settlement claim is always free elsewhere, and this site never hosts a claim form.

Has Kalshi been sued in other states?

Kalshi has litigated against regulators in many states, and the full list sits on one tracker: Kalshi court status in every state. Every case against Kalshi is on the company page, Kalshi lawsuits.