A federal judge in Ohio denied Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have blocked Ohio officials from enforcing the state’s sports gambling laws against the company’s sports event contracts. The order leaves state enforcement in place while the case continues.
The decision contrasts with a February ruling in Tennessee, where a federal judge granted Kalshi a preliminary injunction against state officials, giving the company early-stage relief while the lawsuit proceeds.
Ohio treated Kalshi’s sports contracts as unlicensed sports betting
Kalshi operates a CFTC-regulated designated contract market that lists event contracts, including contracts tied to sports outcomes. In the Ohio case, the court described how Ohio’s Casino Control Commission concluded Kalshi’s sports event contracts resembled sports betting and warned of civil and criminal enforcement if the offers continued.
Ohio’s sports gambling framework requires licensing and includes consumer protection rules. In the opinion, the judge also noted Ohio law bars sports gambling for people under 21, while the state said Kalshi’s platform age-gated users at 18.
Ohio court says Kalshi did not meet the bar for relief
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied the motion. The order states: “Kalshi’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is Denied.”
The opinion focuses on whether Kalshi’s sports event contracts qualify as “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act and whether federal law clearly blocks Ohio from applying its sports gambling laws. The court found Kalshi had not carried its burden at the preliminary injunction stage.
Tennessee court granted injunction against state officials and required a bond
In Tennessee, Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted Kalshi’s motion for a preliminary injunction as to the state-official defendants and denied it as to the Tennessee Sports Wagering Council, which the court dismissed from the case. The court also ordered Kalshi to post an additional $500,000 bond.
The Tennessee memorandum frames the dispute as one about whether federal commodities law or state gambling law governs the sports event contracts, and it found Kalshi had shown a likelihood of success on key issues at this stage.
Two courts, two outcomes, and growing pressure on prediction markets
The Ohio and Tennessee decisions highlight the core question regulators and operators are testing, whether sports event contracts offered on a federally regulated exchange should be treated like state-regulated sports betting when offered to consumers.
The Ohio order keeps state enforcement in play for now, while the Tennessee injunction blocks enforcement by the state-official defendants as the litigation proceeds.
