A federal appeals court ruled on Aug. 28 that Kalshi had not shown Nevada’s regulation of its sports-event contracts was likely preempted by federal commodities law.
Summary
- Ninth Circuit judges held Kalshi unlikely to block Nevada regulation of sports-event contracts through preemption.
- The ruling did not invalidate CFTC rulemaking or resolve any future Administrative Procedure Act challenge.
- A conflicting Third Circuit decision increases the possibility that the Supreme Court reviews Kalshi’s cases.
- Nevada’s election-contract challenge returns to district court while sports-contract enforcement may continue during litigation proceedings.
- The CFTC proposed ninety-day reviews for certain event contracts, including products involving gaming activities nationwide.
The unanimous decision allows Nevada gaming authorities to enforce state requirements while litigation continues.
The Ninth Circuit opinion also raised concerns under the major-questions doctrine. However, it did not invalidate the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s proposed event-contract rules or decide whether a future final rule would survive an Administrative Procedure Act lawsuit.
Kalshi ruling preserves Nevada’s sports-betting authority
Kalshi argued that its sports-event contracts qualified as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act. Because Kalshi operates a CFTC-regulated designated contract market, it said federal jurisdiction displaced Nevada’s gaming laws.
The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument at the preliminary-injunction stage. It found that the contracts likely fell outside the applicable meaning of “swap” because they functioned as sports bets. The panel consequently rejected Kalshi’s express, conflict and field-preemption arguments.
Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson wrote that “the CFTC is not a national gambling regulator.” The court said Kalshi’s broader interpretation lacked a limiting principle and did not fit the surrounding statutory framework.
As crypto.news reported, the 3-0 ruling affirmed the dissolution of an earlier injunction protecting Kalshi from Nevada enforcement. The panel returned Nevada’s separate election-contract claims to the district court for further review.
Major-questions language does not end CFTC rulemaking
Gaming attorney Daniel Wallach argued that the CFTC’s rulemaking was “DOA” because of the court’s major-questions analysis. In an Aug. 29 post, he predicted APA litigation in a California federal court.
That prediction extends beyond the court’s direct holding. The opinion said Kalshi’s broad interpretation of “swap” “would raise concerns under the major-questions doctrine.” It did not hold that the doctrine categorically prevents the CFTC from regulating prediction markets.
Ripple CTO emeritus David Schwartz disputed Wallach’s reading. “This seems to be incorrect to me,” Schwartz wrote. He argued that Congress could create a federal framework for exchange-traded contracts without displacing conventional state-regulated sportsbooks.
Schwartz’s comments represented his interpretation, not a Ripple corporate position or judicial finding. The ruling addressed whether Kalshi had demonstrated a likelihood of success on its preemption claim.
CFTC proposal remains pending but faces new risks
The CFTC’s June proposal would amend Rule 40.11, which governs event contracts involving gaming, terrorism, assassination, war and activities unlawful under federal or state law.
The proposal would establish a 90-day review process and define how the agency interprets “gaming” and when a contract “involves” an enumerated activity. The CFTC would evaluate covered contracts individually using specified public-interest factors.
The Federal Register notice closed for public comments on July 27. The agency can revise, finalize or withdraw the proposal after reviewing those submissions.
A final rule could face an APA challenge over statutory authority, procedure or agency reasoning. Wallach predicted such a lawsuit, but no matching complaint had been verified when the debate emerged.
Circuit split raises Supreme Court stakes
The Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with a Third Circuit ruling favoring Kalshi in its dispute with New Jersey. That disagreement makes Supreme Court review more plausible, although review is not guaranteed.
New Jersey faced a Sept. 3 deadline to seek further review of the Third Circuit decision, according to Reuters. Kalshi could also seek Ninth Circuit rehearing or petition the Supreme Court, but neither action was immediately confirmed.
The jurisdictional dispute extends beyond Nevada. As previously reported in crypto.news coverage of the prediction-market conflict, several states classify sports contracts as gambling products requiring local licenses. Kalshi maintains that federal derivatives regulation preempts those requirements.
For now, Nevada can enforce its gaming laws against Kalshi’s sports contracts. The CFTC proposal remains alive, but the Ninth Circuit opinion provides prospective challengers with another argument against any final rule claiming broad authority over sports-event markets.