Is Kalshi legal in all states? No. As of October 15, 2026, Kalshi operates nationwide as a CFTC-regulated exchange, but its sports contracts are restricted or contested in 21 states. The two courts in the title are now three. The map split on August 28, when a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel ruled that the substance of Kalshi's sports contracts "is sports gambling, regardless of whether Kalshi calls them swaps," the opposite of what the Third Circuit had said in April. On September 25 the Sixth Circuit joined the Ninth, ruling 3-0 that Ohio and Tennessee may enforce their gambling laws against the contracts, and on October 9 Kalshi asked the full Sixth Circuit to rehear the case, which keeps its Tennessee injunction alive until the court rules on it. New Jersey's petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the split (No. 26-299) drew ten friend-of-the-court briefs in the first eight days of October, 39 states and the NFL among the filers, and Kalshi's response is due November 9. The same October 9, Kalshi's own regulator moved to settle the word at the center of every case by rule: the CFTC declared that sportsbook and casino bets are not swaps and proposed that event contracts expressly are. Two states this page did not count until October 12, Rhode Island and Wisconsin, have had suits against Kalshi pending since the spring and are on the board below. Three days after the October 12 edition, the CFTC's two releases are still waiting for the Federal Register, no court on the board has ruled, and two state deadlines, Ohio's for ten other operators and Missouri's for Kalshi, both land on October 16. The state-by-state map, and what moved since October 12, is below.
Stay ahead of the markets.
Daily insights and expert picks on Kalshi, Polymarket, and what's moving markets.
Free forever. Unsubscribe anytime.
Which States Are Contested?
The three Supreme Court rows were re-read against the Court's own docket pages on October 15, 2026, the CFTC rule items were checked against the Federal Register the same day, and the Tennessee, Ohio, Missouri, Nevada (Appeal), New York (State Suit), Connecticut (State Suit), and Rhode Island rows were re-checked against primary reporting on October 15; the Sixth Circuit rehearing petition, the Ninth Circuit rehearing letters, and the Illinois, Kentucky, California, Michigan, Utah, and Wisconsin rows carry their October 12 verification against the federal court dockets and primary reporting; the Arizona and Montana rows carry their September 27 verification, the Nevada district row its September 19 verification, and the remaining rows carry the September 19 and September 11 passes, with earlier passes on August 31 and September 4. The California row is a tribal-lands case, not a state action, and is not counted in the 21; the Wisconsin count rests on the state's own suit, not the Ho-Chunk Nation's tribal case. Where Kalshi is the plaintiff, the company sued the state's regulator to block enforcement; where the state is the plaintiff, the state moved first. This is the map of where the fight is. What your app shows today can differ.
| State | Case | Court | Docket | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada | KalshiEX, LLC v. Hendrick (v. Assad on appeal) | D. Nev. | 2:25-cv-00575 | Kalshi's injunction dissolved; case continues |
| Nevada (Appeal) | KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad — decided Aug 28, 2026 | 9th Cir. | 25-7516 | Kalshi lost, 3-0; election issue remanded; Kalshi petitioned for rehearing en banc Sept 9, 2026, then wrote the court Sept 25 asking it to grant the petition or hold it until the CFTC revised its event-contract rule (17 CFR 40.11); Nevada opposed any delay in a filing reported Oct 4; no ruling on the petition reported as of Oct 15 |
| Nevada (Supreme Court) | Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Dreitzer; North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. (Crypto.com) v. Nevada | U.S. Sup. Ct. | 26-338; 26-344 | Two petitions from the Ninth Circuit side of the split, filed Sept 10 and Sept 11, 2026; Nevada's responses extended to Nov 13 (granted Oct 9) and Nov 16 (granted Oct 8); no further docket entries as of Oct 15 |
| New Jersey | KalshiEX, LLC v. Flaherty | D.N.J. | 1:25-cv-02152 | Injunction protects Kalshi; merits ongoing |
| New Jersey (Appeal) | Kalshiex LLC v. Flaherty — decided Apr 6, 2026 | 3d Cir. | 25-1922 | Kalshi won at the preliminary stage, 2-1 |
| New Jersey (Supreme Court) | Flaherty v. KalshiEX, LLC — petition filed Sept 2, 2026 | U.S. Sup. Ct. | 26-299 | Docketed Sept 8, 2026; asks the Court to review the Third Circuit loss; Kalshi's response deadline extended Sept 22 from Oct 8 to Nov 9, 2026; eleven amicus briefs on the docket Sept 22 to Oct 8, including Ohio with 38 other states and D.C. (Oct 7), the NFL, 145 tribes, the American Gaming Association, the Casino Association of New Jersey, and former CFTC chairman Gary Gensler (all Oct 8); no entries since, as of Oct 15 |
| Maryland | Kalshiex LLC v. Martin | D. Md. | 1:25-cv-01283 | On appeal; state paused enforcement |
| Maryland (Appeal) | Kalshiex LLC v. Martin | 4th Cir. | 25-1892 | Argued May 7, 2026; decision pending |
| New York | KalshiEX LLC v. Williams | S.D.N.Y. | 1:25-cv-08846 | Live |
| New York (Appeal) | KalshiEX LLC v. Williams | 2d Cir. | 26-1835 | Pending; Kalshi's opening brief and a CFTC amicus brief are in, and the state's answering brief is due Oct 30, 2026 |
| New York (State Suit) | People of the State of New York v. KalshiEX LLC; United States and CFTC v. State of New York | S.D.N.Y. | 1:26-cv-06550; 1:26-cv-03404 | State suit filed Jul 31; CFTC's Aug 11 emergency order directs Kalshi to keep operating; in the federal suit, the CFTC's motion to block the state was argued Sept 14, 2026 before Judge Lorna Schofield; no ruling reported as of Oct 15 |
| Connecticut | KalshiEx LLC v. Cafferelli (Kalshi suit vs. state consumer-protection officials, filed Dec 3, 2025) | D. Conn. | 3:25-cv-02016 | Kalshi's injunction denied Aug 10; on appeal to 2d Cir. (26-2239) |
| Connecticut (State Suit) | State of Connecticut v. KalshiEX LLC | Filed in Conn. Super. Ct. (Hartford); removed to D. Conn. | HHD-CV-26-6230345-S; 3:26-cv-01382 | Filed Aug 26; state's ex parte TRO denied same day; Kalshi removed the case to federal court, reassigned to Judge Vernon Oliver Aug 31; state's motion to remand still pending, with no ruling reported as of Oct 15 |
| Michigan | Michigan AG / Gaming Control Board v. Kalshi (Nessel v. KalshiEX) | Ingham Cty. Cir. Ct. | 26-1087-CZ | Preliminary injunction signed Sept 1, 2026 (TRO since Jun 29); sports boards dark; $500,000 per day for missing the geofence |
| Massachusetts | Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Kalshi | Suffolk Cty. Super. Ct. | 2584CV02525 | Preliminary injunction Jan 20, 2026; stayed since February pending appeal |
| Massachusetts (Appeal) | Commonwealth v. Kalshi | Mass. SJC | SJC-13906 | Argued early May 2026; decision pending |
| Utah | KalshiEx LLC v. Cox | D. Utah | 2:26-cv-00151 | Kalshi lost Aug 4, 2026; on appeal to the 10th Cir. |
| Utah (Appeal) | KalshiEx LLC v. Cox | 10th Cir. | 26-4100 | Kalshi's emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal denied Sept 8, 2026; Utah may enforce while the appeal runs |
| Iowa | KalshiEX LLC v. Bird | S.D. Iowa | 4:26-cv-00109 | Kalshi's injunction denied Sept 8, 2026; state may enforce; Kalshi noticed an appeal to the 8th Cir. Sept 15, 2026 |
| Arizona | KalshiEX LLC v. Johnson; United States and CFTC v. Arizona | D. Ariz. | 2:26-cv-01715; 2:26-cv-02246 | Live; the state is barred from enforcing by the injunction Judge Michael Liburdi granted the CFTC on May 5, 2026; on Sept 14 Arizona asked the Ninth Circuit (26-4281) to summarily vacate it as to sports contracts under the Nevada ruling, sending the election-contract questions back, and the CFTC asked the court to wait for the en banc decision first |
| Washington | State of Washington v. KalshiEX LLC | King County Super. Ct. | 26-2-10264-3 SEA | Order in force; Sept 2 geofence deadline |
| Montana | KalshiEX LLC v. Knudsen | D. Mont. | 6:26-cv-00028 | Kalshi's injunction denied Aug 27, 2026; joint stipulation of dismissal filed Sept 17 and the dismissal order entered Sept 21, 2026, with the state's gambling regulators agreeing not to enforce until the Ninth Circuit rules on rehearing, then 30 days' notice |
| California (Tribal Lands) | Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi, Inc. — decided Sept 16, 2026 | 9th Cir. | 25-7504 (N.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-06162) | Tribes likely to win under IGRA, 3-0; injunction denial reversed in part and remanded to Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley for the remaining factors; the mandate returned the case to her Oct 8, 2026, with a case-management conference set for Oct 21; no order in force yet |
| Minnesota | United States v. State of Minnesota | D. Minn. | 0:26-cv-02661 | Platform-ban statute enjoined, on hold |
| New Mexico | State of New Mexico v. Kalshi, Inc. | D.N.M. | 6:26-cv-01857 | Live |
| New Mexico (Federal Suit) | United States of America v. State of New Mexico | D.N.M. | 1:26-cv-01912 | Live |
| Kentucky | Commonwealth of Kentucky v. KalshiEX LLC | E.D. Ky. | 3:26-cv-00048 | Live |
| Kentucky (Federal Suit) | USA v. Commonwealth of Kentucky | E.D. Ky. | 3:26-cv-00049 | Live; Judge S. Chad Meredith canceled the Oct 9 argument on Oct 5 and ordered supplemental briefs by Oct 23, 2026; no new argument date |
| Ohio | Kalshiex LLC v. Schuler | S.D. Ohio | 2:25-cv-01165 | Kalshi's injunction denied Mar 9; denial affirmed by the 6th Cir. Sept 25, 2026; Kalshi petitioned for rehearing en banc Oct 9; state may enforce, and on Oct 2 its Casino Control Commission sent cease-and-desist letters to ten other operators (Kalshi not among them) with an Oct 16 deadline |
| Illinois | KalshiEX LLC v. Raoul; United States and CFTC v. Illinois | N.D. Ill. | 1:26-cv-07363; 1:26-cv-03659 | Judge Martha Pacold granted the injunction motions in part Oct 2, 2026: Illinois may not apply its sports-wagering licensing rules or related criminal provisions to the contracts; the state's per-wager fees stay under review; the parties' proposed injunction order is due Oct 29 |
| Tennessee | KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel | M.D. Tenn. | 3:26-cv-00034 | Feb 2026 injunction favored Kalshi; vacated by the 6th Cir. Sept 25, 2026, effective when the appeals court's mandate issues; Kalshi's Oct 9 rehearing petition holds the mandate, so the injunction still stands for now; the state meanwhile sent Underdog a cease-and-desist Oct 9, and Underdog sued in M.D. Tenn. Oct 13 (Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. v. Skrmetti, 3:26-cv-01461) |
| Tennessee (Appeal) | KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel, consolidated with KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler (Ohio) — decided Sept 25, 2026 | 6th Cir. | 26-5235; 26-3196 | Kalshi lost, 3-0: contracts are not swaps, and state gambling law is not preempted either way; Ohio denial affirmed, Tennessee injunction vacated, both remanded; Kalshi petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc Oct 9, 2026 |
| Missouri | Attorney General cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi and five other operators | — (no case yet) | — | Letter dated Sept 16, 2026, announced Sept 18; Kalshi was asked to confirm within 30 days of the letter that it has stopped offering sports contracts to Missourians or been licensed, so the window closes about Oct 16; Kalshi says the contracts are federally regulated swaps, the attorney general's office described talks as ongoing on Oct 2, and as of Oct 15, one day before the window closes, no suit had been filed and Kalshi had not said publicly whether it will geofence the state |
| Rhode Island | KalshiEx LLC v. Furcolo | D.R.I. | 1:26-cv-00327 | Kalshi sued the state lottery director and attorney general May 21, 2026, hours before the state filed its own case; the United States and CFTC moved to intervene on Kalshi's side May 28; Judge Mary McElroy heard the injunction motions Aug 3; no ruling reported as of Oct 15, the CFTC filed the Illinois opinion with her Oct 5, and the state agreed not to seek state-court relief while she decides |
| Rhode Island (State Suit) | State of Rhode Island v. KalshiEX LLC et al. (Polymarket is the co-defendant) | Filed in R.I. Super. Ct.; removed to D.R.I. | 1:26-cv-00333 | Filed May 21, 2026, removed May 22 and heard alongside Kalshi's case on Aug 3; no ruling reported as of Oct 15 |
| Wisconsin | State of Wisconsin v. Kalshi, Inc., et al. (Kalshi, Robinhood, and Coinbase entities) | Filed in Dane Cty. Cir. Ct.; removed to W.D. Wis. | 3:26-cv-00378 | Filed Apr 23, 2026, one of three public-nuisance suits the attorney general filed that day; removed Apr 24 to Judge William Conley; the state's remand and injunction motions pending |
| Wisconsin (Federal Suit) | United States and CFTC v. State of Wisconsin | E.D. Wis. | 2:26-cv-00749 | CFTC's injunction denied Jul 29, 2026 by Judge William Griesbach, who found Wisconsin's gambling statutes "do not conflict with federal commodities regulations and are not preempted by them"; the CFTC, Kalshi, and the American Gaming Association noticed appeals to the 7th Cir. in August |
What Moved Since October 12
This page was last verified on October 12, so this section covers the three days since, newest first, ending with the two clocks that run out next, with the line each item touches on the board above. It is the shortest window this page has run, and it is mostly a report on clocks: nothing on the board was decided, and the two documents that could redraw it, the CFTC's October 9 releases, have not started running yet.
- October 15, the CFTC's rules are still not in the Federal Register. Both October 9 documents, the interim final rule saying sportsbook and casino bets are not swaps and the proposal to define event contracts as swaps, take effect or open for comment only on publication, and as of October 15 neither has been published. The only CFTC document to reach the Federal Register since October 9 is an unrelated October 13 advance notice on crypto-asset markets. So the interim rule is not yet in effect, neither 30-day comment clock has started, and Kalshi's September 25 letter asking the Ninth Circuit to hold its en banc petition for the agency's rewrite is still waiting on a document that is not in print. No row moves.
- October 13, Tennessee moves on Underdog after its Sixth Circuit win. Tennessee sent Underdog a cease-and-desist on October 9, the same day Kalshi filed its rehearing petition, threatening fines, civil penalties, a criminal investigation, and the loss of Underdog's fantasy sports operator license. Underdog sued the state, its attorney general, and the members of the Tennessee Sports Wagering Council in the Middle District of Tennessee on October 13 (Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc. v. Skrmetti, No. 3:26-cv-01461), making the Supremacy Clause argument Kalshi made in the same courthouse before the Sixth Circuit rejected it; it is Underdog's seventh such suit since September 8, after Connecticut, Washington, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Massachusetts. The item matters here for what it shows about the state's posture: Tennessee is enforcing against operators that hold no injunction while Kalshi's own February injunction survives only because its rehearing petition holds the appellate mandate. The Tennessee row carries the note.
- October 8, a date correction on the Supreme Court file. The Court's docket lists the Casino Association of New Jersey's brief on October 8, not October 9 as the last edition had it, so the eleven friend-of-the-court briefs in No. 26-299 run from September 22 to October 8, six of them on that last day. Nothing has been filed in the case since, and the Robinhood (No. 26-338) and Crypto.com (No. 26-344) dockets show no entries after the October 9 and October 8 extension grants. The next scheduled entry on any of the three is Kalshi's November 9 response. The three Supreme Court rows carry the dates.
- October 16, two clocks run out tomorrow. Ohio's Casino Control Commission gave ten operators until October 16 to confirm in writing that they have stopped offering sports contracts in the state, and Missouri's attorney general gave Kalshi 30 days from a September 16 letter, which lands on the same date. As of October 15 no filing by either state had been reported, and Kalshi had not said publicly whether it will geofence Missouri; its answer on October 2 was that the contracts are federally regulated swaps. The Ohio and Missouri rows carry the dates. Whatever either state does on or after October 16 is the first thing the next edition of this page will record.
What did not move is the longer list. The Ninth Circuit has not ruled on Kalshi's en banc petition, so the Nevada mandate is still held and Montana's stipulated pause holds with it. The Sixth Circuit has not acted on the October 9 petition. Judge Schofield has not ruled on the CFTC's New York motion, argued September 14. The Fourth Circuit (Maryland), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and Judge McElroy in Rhode Island have not ruled. Connecticut's motion to send its state suit back to Hartford is still pending before Judge Oliver. Arizona's request that the Ninth Circuit summarily vacate the CFTC's injunction has drawn no ruling in the reporting. Michigan's injunction and Washington's order stay in force. Every order on this board that restricts anything still runs against an operator, not the trader.
If your state is not in the table, nothing has changed in your app. But the answer there still depends on which federal circuit you live in, and that is the part of the map that has now moved twice.
Why Your Federal Circuit Now Decides
Kalshi holds one federal license. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulates it as a Designated Contract Market, the same category of license futures exchanges hold, which is why event contracts exist at all: they are derivatives on real-world outcomes traded on an order book under federal rules. Kalshi's argument in every state case is that this one license preempts state gambling law, which is licensed book by book. We keep the two frameworks side by side in are prediction markets legal.
Three federal appeals courts have now tested that argument, and two of them rejected it. An appellate ruling binds the federal courts in every state of its circuit, so the map now sorts by geography:
- Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington): Kalshi's federal shield was rejected on August 28. Each state may enforce its own gambling laws once its regulators are free to act: Arizona is still blocked by a federal injunction it asked the court on September 14 to vacate, and Montana's regulators have agreed to hold off. Nevada and Arizona have live cases; Washington has a state-court order in force; Kalshi dropped its Montana suit in exchange for a stipulated pause on enforcement, entered September 21; and Kalshi asked an 11-judge en banc panel to rehear the Nevada case on September 9; that petition holds the panel's mandate while it is pending, a grant would set the panel opinion aside for rehearing, and the court granted 11 of 730 such petitions in its 2025 fiscal year. On September 16 the same court held, in a separate case, that two California tribes are likely to succeed in showing the contracts are class III gaming on their lands. California, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and Idaho have no state case yet, so nothing changes statewide there until a regulator moves.
- Third Circuit (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania): pro-Kalshi precedent. The injunction affirmed on April 6 protects Kalshi in New Jersey, and New Jersey took it to the Supreme Court on September 2.
- Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee): Kalshi's federal shield was rejected on September 25, 3-0, in the consolidated Ohio and Tennessee appeal, on both grounds: the contracts are not swaps, and state gambling law would not be preempted even if they were. Ohio may enforce now; Tennessee's injunction lapses when the mandate issues, and Kalshi's October 9 rehearing petition holds that mandate for now. Kentucky's two suits are district-level, and Michigan's sports boards are separately dark under a state-court injunction.
- Fourth Circuit (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia): Maryland's appeal was argued May 7 and is undecided; Maryland is holding enforcement until it rules.
- Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York, Vermont): both appeals pending, with New York's answering brief due October 30. A Connecticut district judge has already ruled of the contracts: "at bottom, they are sports wagers."
- Eighth Circuit (Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and four states with no case): no ruling yet. Kalshi noticed its Iowa appeal on September 15, Minnesota's platform-ban statute is enjoined at the district level, and Missouri's September 16 cease-and-desist letter, whose 30-day window closes about October 16, has not yet produced a case.
- Tenth Circuit (Utah, New Mexico, and four states with no case): no ruling on the merits. The court denied Kalshi an injunction pending its Utah appeal on September 8; New Mexico's two suits are district-level.
- No Federal Appellate Ruling Yet: Massachusetts (state-court injunction stayed while the state's highest court decides), Rhode Island (First Circuit; Kalshi's injunction motion argued August 3 and undecided), and the Seventh Circuit, where Illinois went Kalshi's way at the district level on October 2 while the CFTC's appeal from its July 29 Wisconsin loss is pending.
Any of the six circuits that have not yet ruled, the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth, could deepen the split or start resolving it.
What The Ninth Circuit Decided On August 28
On Friday, August 28, 2026, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel decided Kalshi's Nevada appeal and ruled 3-0 against the exchange. It largely affirmed the district-court order that had dissolved the preliminary injunction shielding Kalshi from Nevada's gaming regulators. Judge Ryan Nelson, writing for the panel, put the holding in one sentence: "the substance of the sports event contracts offered on Kalshi's DCM is sports gambling, regardless of whether Kalshi calls them swaps." The court held Kalshi had not shown the Commodity Exchange Act likely preempts state gaming regulation for its sports contracts, because the products likely are not swaps under federal law at all. Judge Kenneth Lee added a separate concurrence. We walked through the gambling-or-trading question in is Kalshi gambling; the Ninth Circuit just answered it, for its nine states, in the state's favor.
Two limits keep the ruling in proportion. It is a preliminary decision about likelihood of success, so the Nevada case continues toward a final judgment. And it covers sports contracts only; the panel sent the election-contracts question back to the district court. Kalshi's response, via spokesperson Dani Lever: "Despite the Ninth Circuit's opinion, we still believe the CFTC regulations as written do not prohibit sports contracts, and in any event, the CFTC is working to clarify those regulations." On September 9, Kalshi asked a larger en banc Ninth Circuit panel to rehear the case rather than petition the Supreme Court itself; Robinhood and Crypto.com, whose Nevada appeals were decided the same day, petitioned the Supreme Court on September 10 and 11. And on September 16 a different three-judge panel of the same court cited the Nevada holding in ruling for two California tribes, so the Ninth Circuit's answer now stands twice. On September 25 the Sixth Circuit reached the same answer for Ohio and Tennessee, and added that state gambling law would survive even if the contracts were swaps.
Will The Supreme Court Settle It?
The other pole of the split is New Jersey. On April 6, 2026, a divided Third Circuit panel affirmed Kalshi's injunction against the state's gaming regulators, holding Kalshi showed a reasonable likelihood of success on preemption. Judge David Porter wrote the majority, joined by Chief Judge Michael Chagares. Judge Jane Roth dissented, writing that the products are "virtually indistinguishable from betting products available on online sportsbooks." That injunction is why Kalshi's sports boards still trade in New Jersey, and it serves as pro-Kalshi precedent in Pennsylvania and Delaware if either state moves.
New Jersey skipped a rehearing request and went to Justice Samuel Alito for more time, twice. On July 1 he extended the filing deadline to August 4, and on July 24 he extended it again to September 3, after the state told him pending Fourth or Ninth Circuit rulings "would inform both the petition and this Court as to the presence of a split." Kalshi did not oppose. The Ninth Circuit delivered that split on August 28. On Wednesday, September 2, one day before the deadline, Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and interim gaming-enforcement director Mary Jo Flaherty filed a 332-page petition for certiorari, with appendices, Flaherty v. KalshiEX, LLC, reported by Reuters the same day.
The question presented is one sentence: "Whether the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act preempted States from regulating sports bets that occur within their jurisdictions if those bets are offered on markets registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission." The petition cites the Ninth Circuit's opinion by name, calls the disagreement "a direct, acknowledged, and irreconcilable split," and says Kalshi's position "has already drawn opposition from 44 States, hundreds of Tribes, casinos, public officials, and more." Davenport: "These companies have no right to offer their sports bets without following state law, which is why dozens of states across the ideological spectrum have opposed them." The Court docketed the petition on September 8 as No. 26-299. Kalshi said after the Ninth Circuit ruling that it "will be seeking further review," and the CFTC's spokesperson said the Ninth Circuit "misread the statute" and "teed up a circuit split that calls out for resolution by the Supreme Court." The state that lost and the federal regulator on the other side both want the Court to take the case. Robinhood filed a second petition from the Ninth Circuit side on September 10 (No. 26-338) and Crypto.com's exchange a third on September 11 (No. 26-344), and Kalshi can add a fourth from its own Ninth Circuit loss, or a fifth from the Sixth. The first amicus brief in the New Jersey case, from the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States, was filed on September 22; ten more followed between October 2 and October 8, among them Ohio with 38 other states and the District of Columbia, and the NFL.
What A Grant Would And Would Not Change
A petition is a request, and the Court's calendar runs slower than any docket on this map. Kalshi's brief in opposition was due October 8; the routine extension came on September 22 and moved it to November 9, and the justices vote at private conferences, so the earliest realistic answer on whether they will hear the case is around the turn of the year. A grant by roughly mid-January, the Court's customary cutoff, would put argument in October Term 2026 with a decision by the end of June 2027. A later grant pushes argument to the following term. The last time New Jersey carried a sports-betting fight up from the Third Circuit, the PASPA case, the petition filed October 7, 2016 was not granted until June 27, 2017, and the decision came in May 2018.
Neither the filing nor a grant moves a line on the map by itself. The Third Circuit's injunction stays in force, so Kalshi's sports boards stay open in New Jersey through the entire term unless the justices reverse, and its precedent shields Pennsylvania and Delaware if either state moves. Nevada keeps its August 28 win, and Ohio and Tennessee keep September 25. Michigan, Massachusetts, and Connecticut run on state-court tracks that a grant does not pause. What a grant changes is the clock: the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuit panels may hold their decisions, and states may hold enforcement the way Maryland already has. A denial freezes the map in its current shape, two circuits with opposite law and the state-by-state grind as the permanent operating reality.
What Each Contested State Has Ordered
Nevada
Nevada moved first, in March 2025, and after August 28 Kalshi has no federal shield against its gaming regulators. On a separate state-court track in Carson City, a judge ordered Kalshi in May to geofence its sports, election, and entertainment contracts away from anyone in Nevada by August 12. The Gaming Control Board said in late July that Kalshi would deploy a GeoComply solution to meet it. Then, in an August filing, the board told the court its own investigators had placed nine trades on the app from inside Nevada the day after the deadline, and asked the judge to hold Kalshi in contempt and fine it $120,000 per day. Kalshi disputes the claim, calling the state's tactics an abuse of state power, and says its sports, entertainment, and election boards are blocked for Nevada users.
Washington
Washington won the map's broadest order in force under its own consumer-protection and gambling law, before the Ninth Circuit ruled. On August 13, 2026, King County Superior Court Judge John McHale ordered Kalshi to stop offering event contracts tied to sports, elections, politics, entertainment, culture, technology, science, and "mentions" markets to Washington users. The order set an IP address- and residency-based geofence by August 19, which Kalshi met, and a full multi-source geofence by September 2, backed by reported fines of $120,000 per day, with an affidavit route for explaining any delay. Kalshi hired former U.S. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal and asked both the trial court and the Washington Court of Appeals to pause the order while it appeals. Both said no. The deadline passed with the order in force. As of this page's September 19 check, neither side had said publicly whether the full geofence landed on time, and no later report has surfaced through October 15.
The order is category-level. Commodities, climate, economics, and finance contracts may continue, and users may close out positions they already hold in the restricted categories, though the order puts no date on that exit right. If you are still holding one in Washington, test the exit now rather than assume it.
New York
New York is the one state where the federal regulator reached for its emergency powers. Kalshi sued state officials in October 2025 and took that fight to the Second Circuit in July 2026. On July 31, the New York Attorney General sued Kalshi, seeking a restraining order that would have barred all of Kalshi's event contracts nationwide, plus at least $36 billion in damages; Kalshi moved the case to federal court the same day. After a federal judge turned away the CFTC's first attempt to block the state's case, the agency invoked its Section 8a(9) emergency authority on August 11, a power reporting counts as used only six times before this year and dormant since 1980, and ordered Kalshi to keep operating. CFTC Chairman Michael Selig called a sudden shutdown of a federally registered exchange an existential threat to the agency's authority. A New York trader is trading, for now, under that order while the litigation proceeds. Whether the order is a trump card is already in doubt: a Connecticut federal judge ruled two days later that it did not materially change his earlier analysis.
Connecticut
Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection ordered Kalshi to stop offering what it called unlicensed sports wagering in December 2025, and Kalshi sued to block enforcement. U.S. District Judge Vernon Oliver denied Kalshi's preliminary injunction on August 10, 2026, writing of the contracts that "at bottom, they are sports wagers," and denied a renewed emergency motion three days later, after the CFTC's order landed. Kalshi appealed to the Second Circuit, and state enforcement may proceed meanwhile. On August 26, Attorney General William Tong sued Kalshi in Connecticut Superior Court to shut down its sports contracts; the court denied an immediate ex parte restraining order the same day, and Kalshi removed the case to federal court, where it now sits before Judge Oliver with the state's motion to send it back pending. No court order is in force in Connecticut today; the Department of Consumer Protection's December 2025 cease-and-desist order stands, and since the August 10 denial the state may enforce it.
Is Kalshi Legal In Michigan? Not For Sports Contracts
Michigan is where a state order first actually bit. On June 29, 2026, an Ingham County Circuit Court judge signed a restraining order barring Kalshi from offering or advertising sports contracts to anyone in Michigan, with third-party geolocation required and $120,000 per day on the table, and Kalshi's sports boards have been dark there since midsummer. On September 1, Judge Rosemarie Aquilina converted that order into a preliminary injunction that runs until final judgment. It raises the penalty to $500,000 for each day Kalshi fails to geolocate through a provider licensed by the Michigan Gaming Control Board and extends the ban to deposits, account creation, and advertising, calling the operation a "sports betting operation masquerading as an investment opportunity." When Kalshi filed an emergency rule in July to unwind existing Michigan positions, the CFTC stayed the rule and directed Kalshi to honor the trades instead, the rehearsal for what the agency did in New York a month later.
Massachusetts And Maryland
Massachusetts has had an order on the books since winter. Attorney General Andrea Campbell sued in September 2025, and Suffolk Superior Court Judge Christopher Barry-Smith enjoined the sports contracts on January 20, 2026. The order has been stayed since February while the Supreme Judicial Court decides Kalshi's appeal, argued in early May, where the justices asked how the contracts differ "from what would colloquially be known as a bet." A ruling for the state lifts the stay.
Maryland agreed not to enforce until the Fourth Circuit rules. At the May 7 argument one judge remarked, "If it quacks, you know, it's a duck. Right? It's gambling isn't it?" Baltimore complicated the truce on August 13 by filing its own consumer-protection suits against Kalshi and Polymarket in city court.
Is Kalshi Legal In Utah? Not While The Appeal Runs
Utah is an August loss that has already reached an appeals court. On August 4, 2026, U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that federal law does not preempt Utah's anti-gambling statutes as applied to Kalshi's sports contracts. Governor Spencer Cox's response: "Prediction markets are gambling, full stop." Kalshi appealed to the Tenth Circuit, which on September 8 denied its emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal, so Utah may enforce while the appeal is briefed.
Minnesota, Iowa And The Rest
Minnesota's SF 4760, a statute that bans event-contract platforms outright, was preliminarily enjoined on July 27, 2026 and remains on hold while the federal challenge proceeds. Iowa became the newest district-court loss on September 8, when Judge Stephen Locher denied Kalshi's injunction against the state's attorney general and gaming commission; Kalshi noticed its appeal to the Eighth Circuit on September 15. Montana's Judge Donald Molloy denied Kalshi an injunction on August 27, and on September 17 Kalshi dropped the suit in exchange for the state's promise not to enforce until the Ninth Circuit decides the rehearing question; Molloy entered the dismissal on September 21. Missouri's attorney general sent cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi and five other operators, dated September 16 and announced September 18, with a 30-day window that closes about October 16. Ohio and Tennessee, the two states whose appeals the Sixth Circuit decided on September 25, now sit with Nevada: Ohio may enforce, and Tennessee may once the appeals court's mandate lifts the February injunction. Kentucky and New Mexico each carry a state suit against Kalshi and a federal suit against the state, all live and none decided. Rhode Island and Wisconsin, the two states added to the board on October 12, are both at the injunction-motion stage with no order either way in the states' own suits: Judge Mary McElroy heard Rhode Island's motions on August 3, and Wisconsin's remand and injunction motions sit with Judge William Conley in Madison while the CFTC's separate Wisconsin loss is on appeal to the Seventh Circuit. One point holds across the whole map: every order on this page that restricts anything runs against Kalshi, and none of them makes the individual trader a target.
Does Any Of This Touch Non-Sports Contracts?
Barely. The Third Circuit's opinion, the Ninth and Sixth Circuit rulings, and New Jersey's Supreme Court question are all framed around sports contracts, and the Ninth Circuit sent election contracts back for separate analysis; Arizona's September 14 motion asks for its election-contract questions to go back to the district court too, so elections are the next category in play. The CFTC's October 9 proposal would put the question in regulation for the first time, defining event contracts on "sports, politics, cultural, and weather-related events" as swaps; if it is finalized as written, Kalshi's election and culture boards would carry the same federal label its sports boards have been fighting over, and the Sixth Circuit's holding that the label does not preempt state gambling law would be the states' answer to it. Even Washington's order, the broadest single-state restriction in force, leaves commodities, climate, economics, and finance running. When the next ruling lands, the sports boards, plus elections and politics where an order reaches them, are the piece that appears, disappears, or gets geofenced state by state. Our Kalshi sports review covers what the sports product is when you have access to it.
How Old Do You Have To Be?
You must be 18 or older under Kalshi's own eligibility rules, with document verification if requested. That is three years below the 21+ standard most state-licensed sportsbooks use. Nothing on the board above, and nothing in the CFTC's October 9 releases, touches that rule; every fight on this page is over the label on the contract, not who may hold it, and Missouri's letter is the one place a state has pressed the 21 line against Kalshi directly. The age floor and the state map above are separate gates: being 18 in Michigan does not open the sports board there, and a state with no case on the map does not lower the age. Sign-up collects personal information because Kalshi must verify the identity of anyone opening an account under U.S. law and CFTC rules. Internationally, restricted jurisdictions are listed in Kalshi's Member Agreement, and funding abroad runs on debit, wire, and crypto, with no ACH, PayPal, or Venmo.
What If You Travel, Move, Or Use A VPN?
Availability follows where you are, and the exchange is legally required to know where that is. Kalshi's terms make it your responsibility to ensure your use is lawful where you stand. Routing around a state restriction with a VPN puts your account, and any balance in it, on the wrong side of the verification rules the exchange must enforce. If you move, open the app in the new location and let it tell you what it offers. Two states change the answer at the door rather than at the sports board: Michigan's injunction bars new accounts and deposits outright, and Washington lets you close a restricted-category position but puts no date on that right.
How To Check Your State Today
This is the part of the page that will not go stale, and it takes about 2 minutes.
- Open the app or site where you are. Kalshi's catalog is location-aware; a restricted product simply will not be offered. Washington and Michigan are the live demonstrations, and in Nevada, Ohio, Utah, Iowa, and Connecticut, where courts have refused to block state enforcement, and in Tennessee once the Sixth Circuit's mandate issues, a sports board can go dark without notice, so check before every session rather than once.
- Read the market's rules pane before trading. Every contract states how it settles, who the settlement source is, and when it resolves. If your access to a market changed, the app is where that shows up first.
- Check Kalshi's regulatory page. Kalshi points users to its regulatory hub for filings and current status, and that page is the definitive list on any given day.
- Treat any third-party state list, including this one, as dated the moment it publishes. That is why every claim above carries a docket number where we have one, and an as-of date, instead of a green checkmark.
We ran the same exercise for the other big exchange in is Polymarket legal in the US.
The Bottom Line
The federal answer is stable and the state answer moves. Kalshi's sports contracts have lost the federal shield in the nine Ninth Circuit states and, since September 25, the four Sixth Circuit states; they keep it in the three Third Circuit states and wait on the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth. Michigan is dark, Washington's order is in force, Nevada, Ohio, Connecticut, Utah, and Iowa may enforce, Tennessee may once the mandate issues, which Kalshi's rehearing petition is holding up, Montana has agreed not to for now, Illinois has a ruling for Kalshi with the written injunction order still to come, Missouri's 30-day clock runs out about October 16, and New York trades under an emergency order from Kalshi's own regulator. Whether the Supreme Court takes the New Jersey case, No. 26-299, will not be known before Kalshi answers on November 9. Open the app where you stand for today's answer.
Hottest Prediction Markets Right Now
- 2028 Democratic presidential nominee · $166M traded
- 2027 Pro Football Champion · $52M traded
- Pro Baseball Champion · $41M traded
- Bitcoin price at the end of 2026 · $30M traded
- 2027 Pro Basketball Champion · $19M traded
Every market above links to our full AI model verdict; browse them all on the OddsShopper prediction markets hub.
Event contracts involve risk and are not appropriate for everyone. Availability varies by state and over time; the Supreme Court entries were re-read against the Court's docket pages and the CFTC rule items against the Federal Register on October 15, 2026, and the Tennessee, Ohio, Missouri, Nevada (Appeal), New York (State Suit), Connecticut (State Suit), and Rhode Island entries were re-checked against primary reporting the same day; the Sixth Circuit rehearing, Ninth Circuit rehearing, Illinois, Kentucky, California, Michigan, Utah, and Wisconsin entries carry their October 12, 2026 verification against the federal court dockets and primary reporting; the Arizona and Montana entries carry their September 27 verification, the Nevada district entry its September 19 verification, and the remaining entries carry the September 19 and September 11, 2026 passes, with earlier passes on August 31 and September 4, 2026. The status lines are our reading of the public dockets on those dates: estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice. Trade responsibly.
If you also trade on the Polymarket US App, code OS4 gets new users a $50 trading bonus on a $10 deposit — affiliate link; we may earn a commission; terms as stated by Polymarket. 18+ Only. Restrictions and eligibility requirements apply. Not available in all jurisdictions. Trading is risky. 100% loss can occur. See polymarket.com/tos for more information. The Polymarket US App serves as an independent software provider and affiliate of Polymarket US and Polymarket Clearing, the CFTC-regulated exchange and clearing organization.
More on this: CPI Report Odds: Where Inflation Is Priced · Where Prediction Markets Are Sharp, And Where They Are Soft · Giants Win Total 2026: A 4-13 Team Priced For 7.5 Wins · Tua Tagovailoa's Falcons Job, As Priced By A Market · US Open Exacta Odds: 53 Of The 80 Pairs Are Already Dead
