Washington is trying to move its lawsuit against Kalshi out of federal court and back into state court, arguing that the case is a straight state-law gambling dispute and nothing more. The motion to remand was filed on April 6, just days after the state sued Kalshi in King County Superior Court and the company removed the case to federal court in Tacoma.
The state’s core argument is simple. Washington says its complaint raises only state-law claims under its gambling and consumer protection statutes, so Kalshi cannot manufacture federal jurisdiction by pointing to the Commodity Exchange Act or other federal defenses. In its filing, the state says the complaint “makes no federal claims, cites no federal law, and raises no federal issues.”
Washington is following the same playbook Nevada already used
The remand motion leans heavily on what happened in Nevada and Massachusetts, where courts have already rejected similar attempts by Kalshi to move state gambling cases into federal court. Washington’s filing cites the Nevada remand ruling directly and argues that its own case is the same in all the important ways, because it asks only whether Kalshi’s products violate state gambling law.
Washington also goes after Kalshi’s backup argument for federal jurisdiction. The company tried to invoke federal-officer removal by saying the CFTC is effectively a necessary party or has a strong enough federal interest in the case. Washington says that theory has already failed in Nevada and makes no more sense here, because the state is suing Kalshi, not the CFTC, and is not trying to regulate the federal agency itself.
The filing lands as courts pull in different directions
Timing is what makes this one more interesting than an ordinary remand fight. Washington filed its motion the same day the Third Circuit ruled that New Jersey could not block Kalshi’s sports event contracts because those products fall under federal regulation. That decision will likely give Kalshi fresh material to argue that these disputes belong in federal court and should be treated as commodities cases, not state gambling cases.
But Washington is betting that the first question is still where the case belongs, not who ultimately wins it. If the state gets its way, the lawsuit goes back to King County Superior Court, where Washington can press its claim that Kalshi is operating illegal online gambling in one of the strictest anti-internet-gambling states in the country. That venue fight may sound procedural, but in the Kalshi cases it is becoming one of the most important battles on the board.
