U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit opinion in Kalshi v. Nevada

No. 25-7516

EnteredAug. 28, 2026

Court opinionAffirmed in part, sent back in part

Read the original opinionPDF · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Cite this page

Bluebook

Ninth Circuit Kalshi Ruling (Aug. 28, 2026): Why Nevada Won Kalshi v. Assad, Prediction Market Laws (last updated Nov. 7, 2026), https://predictionmarketlaws.com/documents/ninth-circuit-kalshi-v-assad-opinion.

APA

Prediction Market Laws. (2026, November 7). Ninth Circuit Kalshi Ruling (Aug. 28, 2026): Why Nevada Won Kalshi v. Assad. https://predictionmarketlaws.com/documents/ninth-circuit-kalshi-v-assad-opinion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the Nevada federal court's decision to dissolve the injunction that had protected Kalshi from Nevada's gaming regulators, at least for sports contracts. The panel held that Kalshi's sports event contracts are likely not swaps, so the Commodity Exchange Act's preemption of state law does not reach them. It sent Kalshi's election contracts back to the district court, which had not analyzed them separately.

What the court held

The court can decide what a swap is. Nevada did not have to challenge a CFTC action to argue that Kalshi's contracts fall outside the definition.
Sports contracts are likely not swaps. The panel read “event” and “associated with” narrowly, pointing to the gambling context, the lack of any limiting principle in Kalshi's reading, and major-questions concerns.
Express preemption has limits. The Act does preempt state regulation of swaps traded on a designated contract market, but because these contracts are likely not swaps, that provision does not cover them.
The CFTC's own rule. A CFTC regulation, 17 C.F.R. § 40.11, bars listing contracts that involve gaming, and the CFTC never used its discretionary review to approve these contracts.
No field or conflict preemption. Both theories failed. Kalshi's claimed harms were speculative or self-inflicted, and the equities and public interest favored Nevada.
Election contracts. Sent back so the district court can decide, in the first instance, whether they are swaps.

“we affirm the district court's order dissolving the injunction as to sports event contracts.”

From the opinion

Why it matters

The ruling created a split with the Third Circuit. Crypto.com's and Robinhood's Nevada appeals were decided for Nevada the same day, and both companies have petitioned the Supreme Court (Nos. 26-344 and 26-338).

Where it fits in the case

Kalshi v. Nevada (Ninth Circuit)U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 25-7516

Nov. 28, 2025Appeal docketed.
Feb. 26, 2026Consolidated with Nos. 25-7187 and 25-7831 for argument.
April 16, 2026Oral argument in San Francisco (Nelson, Bade, Lee).
Aug. 28, 2026Opinion affirming in part and remanding in part. This opinion
September 2026Kalshi petitions for rehearing en banc, which stays the panel's mandate (reported by SCCG on Sept. 16, 2026).
Nov. 4, 2026The court denies Kalshi's petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc; no judge requested a vote.

Full docket timeline and status · Also part of Kalshi v. Nevada (D. Nev.)

Read and cite it

OpinionPDF · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full textWeb page · Justia

Cite the opinion

KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad, No. 25-7516 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2026).

Cite this summary

Prediction Market Laws, Ninth Circuit opinion in Kalshi v. Nevada (read Nov. 7, 2026), https://predictionmarketlaws.com/documents/ninth-circuit-kalshi-v-assad-opinion.