A Nevada judge put Kalshi under a 14-day temporary restraining order on March 20, barring the company from offering or facilitating sports, election, and entertainment contracts in Nevada while the state’s case moves forward. Judge Jason Woodbury set an April 3 hearing to decide whether that ban should stay in place longer.
Days after the order took effect, reports said some people physically in Nevada could still get access to sports markets by changing the address listed on their Kalshi account. If that account is right, the fight is no longer only about whether Nevada can regulate prediction markets. It is also about whether Kalshi’s current controls match what the court ordered.
The court order turns on activity in Nevada
The key wording matters. In the operative section, the TRO says Kalshi is prohibited from offering or facilitating sports-, election-, and entertainment-related event contracts “in Nevada” for 14 days. That makes location the heart of the order, not just the state listed in a user profile.
That is why the reported workaround has drawn attention. Trade reporting in the days after the order said Kalshi appeared to rely on registration data rather than live geolocation. Under that setup, a Nevada account holder outside the state could be blocked, while a person inside Nevada with an out-of-state address on file might still get through.
The compliance issue could shape the next hearing
The legal risk is easy to see. Gaming lawyer Daniel Wallach said a contempt motion could follow if Kalshi is found to be violating the TRO. Kalshi had not publicly responded in the reports that raised the issue.
Nevada has treated the case as a straight unlicensed gaming dispute from the start. The Nevada Gaming Control Board sued Kalshi in February, arguing that its sports event contracts fall under Nevada gaming law and cannot be offered without a state license. The March 20 ruling was the state’s first court win against Kalshi in that fight.
April 3 is now about more than the injunction
The April 3 hearing was already important because it will decide whether the temporary ban becomes a preliminary injunction. Now it may also give Nevada a chance to argue that Kalshi’s method of blocking access is too weak if users inside the state can still reach restricted markets.
That leaves Kalshi with a narrow question to answer before the next hearing. Is it stopping trading from people in Nevada, or only from accounts that say they live there.
