Kalshi received mixed court outcomes on opposite sides of the country, winning a stay in Massachusetts while losing a similar request in Nevada. The decisions came within hours of each other and immediately reshaped the operator’s legal position.
In Massachusetts, an appeals court granted a stay on an injunction that would have forced Kalshi to halt its sports-related contracts. In Nevada, the Ninth Circuit denied an emergency stay, clearing the path for state enforcement.
The split outcome highlights the fragmented legal landscape around prediction markets as states and federal authorities continue to clash over jurisdiction.
Massachusetts court pauses injunction and speeds up appeal
The Massachusetts Appeals Court granted Kalshi a stay on a lower court order issued earlier this month. That injunction had given the company 30 days to stop offering contracts tied to sports events and individual player performances.
By granting the stay, the appeals court allowed Kalshi to continue operating while the case moves forward. The court also ordered an expedited appeal schedule, requiring the company to submit its filing within two business days.
The decision does not resolve the underlying dispute but gives Kalshi temporary relief in one of the states challenging its sports contracts.
Ninth Circuit denies stay as Nevada prepares enforcement
In Nevada, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Kalshi’s emergency stay request. The company had asked the court to block state action while its appeal proceeds.
The decision clears the way for Nevada regulators to pursue enforcement. State officials had already indicated they were prepared to act quickly if the stay was denied.
The appellate court did not provide a detailed explanation for its ruling, leaving the legal reasoning unclear at this stage.
Nevada files civil action targeting sports contracts
Within hours of the Ninth Circuit decision, Nevada regulators filed a civil enforcement action against Kalshi. The Nevada Gaming Control Board is seeking an injunction to stop what it calls unlicensed wagering in the state.
Regulators argue that contracts tied to sports outcomes fall under the state’s definition of wagering. Under Nevada law, such activity requires a gaming license.
The enforcement action moves the dispute from appellate procedure into active litigation, with the state now seeking court-ordered relief.
Federal support collides with state-level enforcement
The legal fight is unfolding alongside increased federal support for prediction markets. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has backed Kalshi’s position in recent filings and public statements.
Kalshi expanded into sports contracts in early 2025, a move that triggered legal challenges from several states. Regulators argue that sports-linked contracts should be treated as gambling products under state law.
The conflicting rulings in Massachusetts and Nevada show how the issue is likely to play out across multiple courts. The outcome will shape how prediction markets operate alongside licensed sportsbooks.
Split decisions underline the regulatory divide
Tuesday’s results leave Kalshi with a temporary win in Massachusetts and a fresh enforcement battle in Nevada. The operator now faces parallel legal tracks that could produce different outcomes in different jurisdictions.
The broader dispute remains unresolved. Courts and lawmakers are still deciding whether prediction markets fall primarily under federal commodities law or state gambling regulation.
Until that question is settled, operators and regulators are likely to keep testing the boundaries in both state and federal courts.
