Kalshi is legal where it is because the Commodity Futures Trading Commission designated it a contract market in 2020 and Kalshi treats its sports contracts as "swaps" that only federal law may regulate; the Third Circuit has accepted that reading, the Ninth and Sixth Circuits have rejected it for state-law purposes, and the Supreme Court has 1 petitions before it with responses due 7 December 2026. Why do appeals courts disagree about one app?
The short answer
The question has two halves: whether a contract that pays out on a game result is a "swap" under the Commodity Exchange Act, which gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over swaps traded on a designated contract market (7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(A)), and whether that exclusivity displaces a state's gambling law. The cases are collected under prediction market lawsuits: Kalshi, Polymarket and the states.
The Third Circuit answered yes to both on 6 April 2026 (2-1). The Ninth Circuit (28 August 2026, 3-0) and the Sixth Circuit (25 September 2026, 3-0) answered no to the first.
Sports contracts were over 90 percent of Kalshi's trades and 95 percent of its revenue in 2025. The guides to how gambling lawsuits and settlements work cover the wider procedure.
A preliminary-injunction ruling decides likelihood of success, not the merits; the Ninth Circuit's tribal ruling of 16 September 2026 rests on IGRA, not on the swaps definition.
What the courts have actually decided
The appeals courts and the district courts have ruled on the question since April 2025, and the table gives each ruling's court, docket, date and vote. A preliminary-injunction ruling decides likelihood of success, not the merits, and a complaint states one side's allegations.
Rulings on whether sports event contracts are swaps and whether states may regulate them, as of 14 November 2026
| Court | Case and docket | Date | Vote | Holding on swaps | Holding on preemption | Status | Id |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Third Circuit | Kalshi v. Flaherty (New Jersey), No. 25-1922, 172 F.4th 220 | 6 Apr 2026 | 2-1 (Roth, J., dissenting) | Swaps on a designated contract market | Field and conflict preemption; New Jersey barred | Appealed: cert. petition 26-299 filed 2 Sep 2026 | GL-US-0602 |
| Ninth Circuit | Kalshi v. Assad (Nevada), No. 25-7516 | 28 Aug 2026 | 3-0 | Not shown to preempt for sports contracts; remand on election contracts only | No likelihood of preemption of Nevada gaming law | Appealed: rehearing denied in early November 2026, date differs by source | GL-US-0601 |
| Ninth Circuit | Crypto.com v. Nevada, No. 25-7187 | 28 Aug 2026 | 3-0 | Injunction denial affirmed | Same reasoning | Cert. petition 26-344 filed 11 Sep 2026 | GL-US-0657 |
| Ninth Circuit | Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi, No. 25-7504 | 16 Sep 2026 | Panel (McKeown, J.) | Class III gaming under IGRA | Neither UIGEA nor the exclusive-jurisdiction clause displaces IGRA | Preliminary injunction on remand 4 Nov 2026 | GL-US-0826 |
| Sixth Circuit | Kalshi v. Schuler (Ohio), Nos. 26-3196, 26-5235 | 25 Sep 2026 | 3-0 | Not swaps | No express or implied preemption of Ohio or Tennessee law | En banc petition of 9 Oct 2026 undecided; mandate held | GL-US-0604, GL-US-0605 |
| D.D.C. | Kalshi v. CFTC (election contracts), 1:23-cv-03257 | 12 Sep 2024 | Single judge | Election contracts, not sports | Summary judgment for Kalshi; D.C. Cir. appeal dismissed 7 May 2025 | Judgment | GL-US-0600 |
| D. Md. | Kalshi v. Martin (Maryland), 1:25-cv-01283 | 1 Aug 2025 | Single judge | Injunction denied; Kalshi could obtain a state license | Not preempted | Appealed: 4th Cir. 25-1892 argued 7 May 2026, undecided | GL-US-0603 |
| S.D.N.Y. | Kalshi v. Williams (New York), 1:25-cv-08846 | 7 Jul 2026 | Single judge (Torres, J.) | Injunction denied | CEA does not preempt New York gambling law | Appealed: 2d Cir. 26-1835, injunction pending appeal denied 3 Nov 2026 | GL-US-0606 |
| D. Utah | Kalshi v. Cox (Utah), 2:26-cv-00151 | 4 Aug 2026 | Single judge (Shelby, J.) | Summary judgment for the state | No preemption | Appealed: 10th Cir. 26-4100 | GL-US-0609 |
| D. Conn. | Kalshi v. Cafferelli (Connecticut), 3:25-cv-02016 | 10 Aug 2026 | Single judge (Oliver, J.) | Not swaps | Injunction denied | Appealed: 2d Cir. 26-2239 | GL-US-0607 |
| D. Mont. | Kalshi v. Knudsen (Montana), 6:26-cv-00028 | 27 Aug 2026 | Single judge (Molloy, J.) | Injunction denied | Not preempted | Dismissed by stipulation 21 Sep 2026 | GL-US-0611 |
| S.D. Iowa | Kalshi v. Bird (Iowa), 4:26-cv-00109 | 8 Sep 2026 | Single judge (Locher, J.) | Injunction denied, per trackers | Per trackers; opinion not retrieved | Appealed: 8th Cir. 26-2874 | GL-US-0610 |
| N.D. Ill. (Illinois) | Kalshi v. Raoul, 1:26-cv-07363 | 2 Oct 2026; injunction 30 Oct 2026 | Single judge (Pacold, J.) | Likely swaps | Parts of Illinois law likely preempted | Appealed: 7th Cir. 26-3266 | GL-US-0614 |
| D. Minn. (Minnesota) | Kalshi v. Ellison, 0:26-cv-02778 | 27 Jul 2026 | Single judge (Menendez, J.) | Injunctions granted against Minn. Stat. 609.7615 for CFTC-registered markets | Enforcement barred | Appealed: 8th Cir. 26-2905 | GL-US-0612 |
| D. Ariz. (Arizona) | Kalshi v. Johnson, 2:26-cv-01715 | CFTC injunction 5 May 2026 | Single judge | Kalshi's injunction denied 8 Apr 2026; CFTC's granted | Civil and criminal enforcement barred | Appealed: 9th Cir. 26-4281 | GL-US-0608 |
| S.D.N.Y. | Novig v. James, 1:26-cv-06676 | 10 Nov 2026 | Single judge | Held swaps, per tracker | Injunction still denied; opinion not retrieved | Appealed: 2d Cir. 26-3263 | GL-US-0666 |
| Mass. Superior Ct. | Massachusetts v. Kalshi, 2584CV02525 | 20 Jan 2026 | Single judge | Preemption theory "overly broad" | State injunction granted, then stayed | SJC-13906 argued 4 May 2026, undecided | GL-US-0618 |
| W.D. Wis. | Ho-Chunk Nation v. Kalshi, 3:25-cv-00698 | 11 May 2026 | Single judge | IGRA claim survives; injunction denied | Appeal certified and stayed 11 Sep 2026 | 7th Cir. 26-8020 accepted 27 Oct 2026, per trackers | GL-US-0827 |
| E.D. Wis. | CFTC v. Wisconsin, 2:26-cv-00749 | 28 Jul 2026 | Single judge (Griesbach, J.) | CFTC injunction denied | Opinion not retrieved | Appealed: 7th Cir. 26-2636 | GL-US-0648 |
| U.S. Supreme Court | Flaherty v. KalshiEX 26-299; Robinhood v. Dreitzer 26-338; NADEX v. Nevada 26-344 | Filed 2, 10 and 11 Sep 2026 | none | Petitions only | Responses due 7 Dec 2026 | No order | GL-US-0602, 0658, 0657 |
What Kalshi is in law: a designated contract market, not a sportsbook
KalshiEX LLC has been a CFTC-designated contract market since 2020, which lets it list contracts by self-certification without prior approval, and the CFTC's power to pull a contract off the exchange was itself the first thing litigated.
A designated contract market is an exchange registered with and overseen by the CFTC, and an event contract is a yes-or-no contract that pays a fixed amount on an outcome.
The CFTC ordered Kalshi's congressional-control contracts off the exchange on 22 September 2023 as "gaming" under the provision at issue in that case; Judge Cobb granted Kalshi summary judgment on 12 September 2024 (D.D.C. 1:23-cv-03257), the D.C. Circuit refused a stay on 2 October 2024, and the CFTC's appeal was dismissed on 7 May 2025 after the agency dropped it.
The Kalshi v. CFTC election contracts case is about election contracts, not sports, and no court has applied it to sports contracts as a holding.
The swaps question: one statute, two readings
Every state case turns on the word "swap": Kalshi reads the Commodity Exchange Act's definition to cover any contract whose payment depends on the occurrence of an event, so a contract on who wins a game qualifies; the states read the same definition in its financial context, as an instrument for transferring economic risk, which a bet on a game is not.
Third Circuit, 6 April 2026: swaps, and New Jersey is preempted
On 6 April 2026 the Third Circuit affirmed Kalshi's injunction against New Jersey's Division of Gaming Enforcement 2-1 (KalshiEX LLC v.
Flaherty, No. 25-1922, 172 F.4th 220): sports event contracts are swaps traded on a CFTC-designated contract market, and both field and conflict preemption bar New Jersey's enforcement; Judge Roth dissented. The ruling is on the page for Kalshi v. New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (Flaherty).
The district injunction dated from 28 April 2025 (D.N.J. 1:25-cv-02152). New Jersey did not seek rehearing and petitioned for certiorari on 2 September 2026 (No. 26-299).
Ninth Circuit, 28 August 2026, and Sixth Circuit, 25 September 2026: not swaps, states may regulate
On 28 August 2026 the Ninth Circuit held 3-0 in KalshiEX LLC v. Assad (No. 25-7516) that Kalshi had shown no likelihood that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts Nevada's gaming law as applied to sports contracts, affirming Chief Judge Gordon's dissolution of Kalshi's injunction of 24 November 2025 and his earlier denial to Crypto.com of 14 October 2025.
The court sent back only the election contracts, and rehearing was denied in early November 2026; the date differs by source.
The Sixth Circuit ruled on 25 September 2026 (KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, No. 26-3196, with Kalshi v. Orgel, No. 26-5235) that the contracts are not swaps and that the Act neither expressly nor impliedly preempts Ohio's or Tennessee's gambling laws.
It affirmed Chief Judge Morrison's denial of 9 March 2026 and vacated Judge Trauger's Tennessee injunction of 19 February 2026; the Ohio case is Kalshi v. Ohio Casino Control Commission (Schuler). Kalshi's en banc petition of 9 October 2026 is undecided and the mandate is held.
The district courts in between
Below the appeals courts the count runs against Kalshi: judges in Maryland (1 August 2025), New York (7 July 2026), Utah (summary judgment for the state, 4 August 2026), Connecticut (10 August 2026), Montana (27 August 2026) and Iowa (8 September 2026, per trackers) refused Kalshi an injunction or ruled for the state, while Illinois (opinion 2 October, injunction 30 October 2026), Minnesota (27 July 2026) and Arizona (CFTC injunction 5 May 2026) went the other way, and on 10 November 2026 the Southern District of New York held in Novig's case, per a tracker, that the contracts are swaps yet still denied the injunction.
Every appeal is tracked under pending appeals and high court gambling cases.
The second question: even if swaps, does federal law displace state gambling law?
Calling the contracts swaps does not end the case: the Third Circuit went on to find field and conflict preemption, the Sixth Circuit held there is neither even on its own terms, and Massachusetts' Superior Court called Kalshi's preemption theory "overly broad" on 20 January 2026 when it granted the first state injunction, now stayed while the Supreme Judicial Court decides SJC-13906 (argued 4 May 2026 per press, undecided).
Maryland's federal judge reasoned on 1 August 2025 that Kalshi could apply for a state license (D. Md. 1:25-cv-01283); the Fourth Circuit heard the appeal (25-1892) on 7 May 2026 and has not ruled.
Massachusetts added a geofencing order on 6 February 2026, which a single justice of the Appeals Court stayed on 17 February 2026. The jurisdiction story and the fight between the CFTC and the states belong to CFTC jurisdiction versus state gambling law.
The tribal question: class III gaming on Indian lands
A separate federal statute cuts the other way on reservations: on 16 September 2026 the Ninth Circuit held in Blue Lake Rancheria v.
Kalshi (No. 25-7504) that Kalshi's sports event contracts are class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, that a contract entered from tribal land is located on Indian lands, and that neither UIGEA nor the Commodity Exchange Act's exclusive-jurisdiction clause displaces IGRA. The record is under California tribes v. Kalshi and Robinhood (Blue Lake Rancheria).
On remand the district court entered an injunction on 4 November 2026 covering the Blue Lake and Chicken Ranch lands, per a PACER copy of Dkt. 106 hosted by the press and not yet on GovInfo.
The Seventh Circuit accepted the Ho-Chunk Nation's interlocutory appeal on 27 October 2026 (No. 26-8020, per the court tracker, docket not fetched).
The CFTC's own position: rulemaking, emergency orders and suits against states
The agency that designated Kalshi has sued 6 states since 2 April 2026 to stop them enforcing gambling law against event contracts on its exchanges, and on 9 October 2026 it proposed a rule defining event contracts as swaps (91 FR 66022), after withdrawing on 4 February 2026 a 2024 proposal that would have banned sports and political contracts.
Emergency orders followed on 14 July 2026 (Michigan trades fulfilled, a rule change stayed) and 11 August 2026 (keep operating nationwide).
The CFTC won injunctions in Arizona, Minnesota and Illinois and lost in Wisconsin on 28 July 2026, the agency's first refusal; the Wisconsin appeal is pending in the Seventh Circuit. The matrix of suits is on states suing Kalshi and states sued by the CFTC.
The rulemaking has moved in steps: an advance notice on 12 March 2026 (91 FR 12516), a proposal listing enumerated activities on 10 June 2026 (91 FR 35806) and then the swaps definition proposal.
The 2024 proposal it replaced had been published on 10 June 2024 (89 FR 48968), and the withdrawal came with a staff advisory (25-36). A proposed rule binds no court, so the judges above are still reading the statute for themselves.
Where that leaves "is Kalshi legal": court orders, not a yes or no
The answer for any state is a court order with a date, not a yes or no: as of 14 November 2026 orders block Kalshi's sports contracts in Nevada (First Judicial District Court, written injunction 18 May 2026), Michigan (Ingham County, injunction 1 September 2026, USD 500,000 per day) and Washington (King County, final order 13 August 2026), and on two California reservations, while federal injunctions keep them available in New Jersey, Illinois, Minnesota and Arizona.
Texas and most states have no order either way in our record; in Texas there is no suit, and a Senate interim hearing was held on 15 September 2026. Ohio, Tennessee, New York, Connecticut, Utah and Iowa may enforce, but no order blocks the app.
Ohio's Casino Control Commission gave notice of an intended fine on 14 April 2026, and the amount is not public. New York's attorney general sued Kalshi on 31 July 2026 (index 453272/2026, since removed to federal court as 1:26-cv-06550), and no injunction has issued; the state's figures are its pleading, not a finding.
The "legal in all 50 states" advertising claim is itself the subject of the consolidated class action in S.D.N.Y. (1:25-cv-08585), pending with no class certified. Every state order and date is on the tracker for Kalshi court status in every state.
What this page does not cover
Whether Kalshi is a good product, how it pays, who may trade and what it has raised are not legal questions and are not answered here. Kalshi's full list of cases, as plaintiff and defendant, is on the page for Kalshi lawsuits.
Insider trading and manipulation on prediction markets are CFTC enforcement matters, covered under insider trading and manipulation on prediction markets.
State-level gambling cases that are not about Kalshi sit on the hub for gambling lawsuits in the United States.
Questions people ask
Is Kalshi legal in the USA, and in my state?
Federally, Kalshi is a registered contract market; in a given state the answer is the court order in force there, and the tracker lists every state with its order and date. See Kalshi court status in every state.
What was the court decision in the Kalshi Nevada case?
The Ninth Circuit held on 28 August 2026 (No. 25-7516, 3-0) that Kalshi showed no likelihood that federal law preempts Nevada's gaming law for sports contracts, affirming the dissolution of Kalshi's injunction; Nevada's own state-court injunction has been in force since 3 April 2026, with the written order of 18 May 2026. The case page is Kalshi v. Nevada Gaming Control Board, the Ninth Circuit ruling.
How is Kalshi legal in New Jersey?
Because the Third Circuit held on 6 April 2026 that sports event contracts are swaps and that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts New Jersey's enforcement, an injunction protects Kalshi there until the Supreme Court acts on New Jersey's petition (No. 26-299). The state page is Is Kalshi legal in New Jersey? court status.
Is Polymarket treated the same way?
Largely, in the sense that matters: Polymarket US (QCX LLC) is also a CFTC-designated contract market, Nevada's court enjoined its sports contracts on 29 May 2026, and the Minnesota injunction of 27 July 2026 covers Polymarket US's own suit. The company page is Polymarket lawsuits.
Washington's injunction of 13 August 2026 names Kalshi; the state's status for every operator is on Is Kalshi legal in Washington? court status.
Will the Supreme Court settle the swaps question?
Three petitions are pending (No. 26-299 Flaherty v. KalshiEX, filed 2 September 2026; No. 26-338 Robinhood v. Dreitzer, 10 September; No. 26-344 NADEX v. Nevada, 11 September), every response is due 7 December 2026, and the Court has issued no order on any of them; a report that it "declined" the cases on 1 October is wrong. Track them under pending appeals and high court gambling cases.