The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against Kalshi on 25 September 2026 in its cases against Ohio and Tennessee. Kalshi had asked for preliminary injunctions to stop the states from applying their gambling laws to its sports-event contracts. In a published opinion by Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, joined by Judges Clay and Bloomekatz, the court turned that request down.
What the court decided
The cases are KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler (Ohio) and KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel (Tennessee), Nos. 26-3196 and 26-5235. The panel gave two grounds:
- Kalshi “has not shown that its sports-event contracts satisfy the statutory definition of a ‘swap’”. The court found the financial consequences Kalshi pointed to “too attenuated, indirect, and speculative”.
- In the alternative, the Commodity Exchange Act “neither expressly nor impliedly preempts” either state’s gambling laws.
The court affirmed the Ohio district court’s denial of an injunction. It vacated the injunction Kalshi had won in Tennessee, and sent both cases back to the lower courts. The Ohio Casino Control Commission and the Tennessee Sports Wagering Council had both said they intended to bring enforcement actions against Kalshi.
The opinion also addressed geofencing. Kalshi argued that blocking users by state is technically hard and expensive. The panel replied that “expensive does not mean impossible.”
A widening circuit split
The Sixth Circuit noted that two sister circuits reached “opposite results” on substantially the same question. The Fourth Circuit’s Maryland appeal (No. 25-1892) is still pending.
At the Supreme Court, New Jersey’s petition in Flaherty v. KalshiEX was filed on 2 September. The Court has extended Kalshi’s deadline to respond to 9 November 2026, so a decision on whether to take the case is unlikely before then.
Kalshi spokesperson Dani Lever told Courthouse News the ruling “shows exactly why a state-by-state patchwork doesn’t work.”
What changes in our data
Nothing yet. Our Kalshi data records it as available to eligible US members as a CFTC-regulated exchange. At the time of this ruling we tracked no Kalshi restrictions at state level; since 29 September 2026 Nevada, Washington and Michigan are recorded as limited under their own court orders. This ruling is a preliminary-stage decision, and we have not found a Kalshi notice saying it has stopped offering sports contracts in Ohio or Tennessee. If Kalshi geofences either state, or a regulator obtains an order, we will add state rows from that primary source.
What happens next
- Ohio and Tennessee regulators may now move ahead with enforcement.
- Kalshi can ask the full Sixth Circuit to rehear the case.
- The Supreme Court petition is the likeliest route to a national answer.
Sources
- US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler; KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel, Nos. 26-3196/5235, 25 September 2026.
- US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, KalshiEX, LLC v. Flaherty, No. 25-1922, 6 April 2026.
- US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad, No. 25-7516, 28 August 2026.
- Supreme Court of the United States, Docket No. 26-299.
Kalshi
United States