Arizona asks Ninth Circuit to vacate sports event contracts ruling, citing Kalshi v. Nevada
Arizona has filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asking it to vacate a district court ruling that applied state gaming laws against designated contract markets offering sports-event contracts. The state argues that the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Kalshi v. Nevada is now binding precedent in the circuit. The filing, flagged by gaming attorney Daniel Wallach on X, contends that sports-event contracts fall outside federal oversight and leave states free to regulate them under their own gaming statutes.
The filing extends the state-by-state assault on Kalshi's federal preemption theory to a new jurisdiction. Kalshi must now allocate legal spend across parallel cases in at least four states while its national sports market fragments. Each new filing emboldens the next attorney general, and geofence costs multiply as traders hold positions whose legality shifts with state borders.
New Jersey has petitioned the Supreme Court to resolve the circuit split, but cert grants are rare. The Ninth Circuit is already hostile territory for Kalshi after its Nevada loss. An Arizona ruling against Kalshi would further shrink the map where federal registration protects contract validity and compound pressure for a fragmented, state-by-state compliance posture.
Arizona becomes at least the fifth state to formally challenge Kalshi's federal preemption shield on sports event contracts, after parallel actions or rulings in Nevada, Connecticut, Utah, and Maryland, with New Jersey now pressing the Supreme Court to resolve the growing circuit split.