Ninth Circuit panel questions Kalshi on tribal sports contract ban
A Ninth Circuit panel heard arguments Friday on whether to block Kalshi and Robinhood from offering sports event contracts on tribal lands. Three California tribes are appealing after a lower court rejected their bid for an injunction. Judges pressed Kalshi on why its CFTC-regulated contracts differ from sportsbook wagers. One judge said the contracts 'sound like a bet.' The case tests whether tribal gaming agreements limit federally regulated prediction markets in tribal jurisdictions.
A ruling for the tribes would force Kalshi to geofence or drop markets on tribal lands nationwide, not just in California. Robinhood faces identical exposure from the same injunction. The panel's skepticism toward Kalshi's CFTC defense echoes Torres's preemption ruling in New York, where Judge Torres denies Kalshi New York injunction.
If two federal appellate courts reject Kalshi's federal shield, state attorneys general in Michigan, Illinois, and New Mexico gain decisive precedent. Kalshi's legal team must now win on distinct theories in multiple circuits simultaneously or retreat market by market. The tribal angle adds a sovereign-nation layer that sportsbooks never faced, complicating settlement.
Kalshi now fights on parallel federal appellate fronts — the Ninth Circuit tribal appeal and the Second Circuit preemption appeal — while Torres's ruling in New York opens the door to state enforcement across multiple jurisdictions.