It looks like the sports betting-like show can go on for Kalshi in the Silver State – at least for now.
On Tuesday, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada partially granted Kalshi's request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against local gaming watchdogs seeking to curtail the prediction market's operations in the state.
Key insights
- Kalshi has scored a legal win its battle to continue offering sports and election-related event contracts for trading in Nevada.
- The federally regulated prediction market is facing similar fights in several other states seeking to curb what they view as unauthorized sports wagering.
While the hearing was not publicly broadcast, an online court docket showed Chief Judge Andrew Gordon heard arguments before granting Kalshi’s motion in part. What parts exactly were not immediately clear, but a written order will follow at some point.
"We are grateful for the court's careful attention to this matter and recognition of Kalshi's status as a CFTC-regulated exchange," Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour said Wednesday on X. "Onto the next step."
What is at issue, though, is whether Nevada can stop Kalshi from offering what the state alleges is unauthorized wagering on elections and sports via federally regulated event contracts.
The prediction market was hit with a cease-and-desist order by the Nevada Gaming Control Board last month over that allegedly “unlawful activity.”
Kalshi has since been served with similar notices by five other states: Maryland, Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, and Montana.
See you in court(s)
Rather than cease-and-desist, Kalshi sued and asked the Nevada district court to declare the state's efforts unconstitutional and block the local regulator’s attempts to impose local laws and rules on the company. The company has launched a similar lawsuit in New Jersey.
It’s a complex legal matter, but the short version of Kalshi’s argument is the company is federally regulated and not subject to state-level oversight.
So, just because a Kalshi user in Nevada can buy a “yes” contract that says Scottie Scheffler will win the Masters, and win or lose money on the result, it doesn’t mean Nevada regulators can intervene.
Only the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) can do that, Kalshi argues, and the federal regulator hasn’t.
“Nevada’s attempt to regulate Kalshi intrudes upon the federal regulatory framework that Congress established for regulating futures derivatives on designated exchanges,” the company said in the lawsuit filed on March 28.
That attempt has apparently now been temporarily blocked by a federal court, at least in part. Whether it will remain blocked remains to be seen, but, for now, Kalshi could be beyond the grasp of Nevada sports betting regulators.
At stake in the case is the status quo for legal sports betting in the U.S., as it has typically been offered under the watch of state-level regulators like the Nevada Gaming Control Board.
Florida has a 75% chance of winning. 19 seconds left.
— Kalshi (@Kalshi) April 8, 2025
What a game so far pic.twitter.com/u0Zm7x95ZP
Yet the likes of Kalshi, Robinhood, and Crypto.com are federally regulated and available in all 50 states, not just the ones with legalized sports betting. Therefore, they can and are currently operating where online sportsbook operators such as DraftKings and FanDuel cannot tread, including the massive markets of California and Texas.
The prediction markets also recently expanded the event contracts they offer to include sports-related outcomes, putting them in direct competition with sportsbook operators and other forms of gambling.
“If an entity, such as Kalshi, directly makes use of Nevada gaming, i.e., sports pools, in its business model without possessing a gaming license a big hole is created in Nevada’s regulatory structure,” the Nevada side argued in its response to Kalshi’s lawsuit. “Nevada’s legislature has carefully crafted the law in this state to ensure that every aspect of gaming related activity is regulated and conducted with integrity and consumer protections.”
