Ninth Circuit judges question Kalshi prediction market in Nevada case
Ninth Circuit judges heard arguments in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi, a Nevada state gaming case challenging whether Kalshi's CFTC-registered event contracts preempt state gambling law. The panel questioned both sides during oral argument. Robinhood is also named in the appeal. The case follows a lower-court dispute over an injunction that would have blocked the platforms' Nevada operations. Published materials include briefs and argument video.
A Ninth Circuit ruling against Kalshi would confirm that CFTC registration does not block state gaming enforcement, forcing the platform to fight market-by-market. Robinhood faces identical exposure, since both were named in the appeal. The panel's skepticism toward the preemption argument mirrors the doubts judges voiced in the parallel California tribal case before the same court.
Each state or tribal venue that carves out an exception shrinks the national market Kalshi needs for liquidity. Kalshi's legal budget compounds with each new front, and geofencing starts to look cheaper than fighting on. For Polymarket, the same preemption logic applies, so an adverse outcome here previews its own exposure in state-level suits.
This Nevada case joins the separate California tribal challenge also before the Ninth Circuit, giving the same appellate panel two chances to limit Kalshi's sports-event-contract footprint in the West.