U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Sixth Circuit opinion in Kalshi's Ohio and Tennessee appeals
Nos. 26-3196 and 26-5235
Entered
Court opinionOhio affirmed; Tennessee injunction vacated
Cite this page
Bluebook
Sixth Circuit Kalshi Ruling (Sept. 25, 2026): Sports Contracts Are Not Swaps, Prediction Market Laws (last updated Nov. 7, 2026), https://predictionmarketlaws.com/documents/sixth-circuit-kalshi-v-schuler-opinion.
APA
Prediction Market Laws. (2026, November 7). Sixth Circuit Kalshi Ruling (Sept. 25, 2026): Sports Contracts Are Not Swaps. https://predictionmarketlaws.com/documents/sixth-circuit-kalshi-v-schuler-opinion
Deciding Kalshi's Ohio and Tennessee appeals together, the Sixth Circuit held that Kalshi's sports event contracts are not swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, which puts them outside the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction. It upheld Ohio's win in the district court, vacated the injunction Kalshi had won in Tennessee, and sent both cases back. In the alternative, it held that even if the contracts were swaps, the Act would not preempt either state's gambling laws.
What the court held
- Kalshi can sue. The company may challenge state enforcement under Ex parte Young; the Act's remedy provisions do not displace that route.
- “Event” is broad. The court rejected the states' narrow reading and accepted that an event can include an outcome.
- The consequence must be inherent. A contract is a swap only if the event is inherently tied to a financial, economic or commercial consequence. Downstream or speculative effects, such as on sponsors or advertisers, are not enough.
- Not swaps, so not exclusive. Reading “involving swaps” to modify the whole list in the jurisdiction clause, the court held that contracts that are not swaps fall outside the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction.
- Alternative holding. Even if the contracts were swaps, the Act would not expressly or impliedly preempt Ohio or Tennessee gambling law. Gambling is a field states have traditionally regulated, so the presumption against preemption applies.
“we hold that Kalshi's sports-event contracts are not swaps under the CEA.”
Why it matters
Two federal appeals courts have now rejected Kalshi's position and one has accepted it. Kalshi petitioned the Sixth Circuit for rehearing en banc on Oct. 9, 2026.
Where it fits in the case
Kalshi v. Ohio (Sixth Circuit)U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 26-3196
- CFTC announces an amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit supporting exclusive federal jurisdiction.
- Court consolidates Nos. 26-3196 and 26-5235 (and drops the Tennessee Sports Wagering Council as a party in 26-5235).
- Oral argument before Judges Clay, Gibbons and Bloomekatz.
- Panel affirms the denial of a preliminary injunction. This opinion
- Kalshi petitions for rehearing en banc in the joint Ohio/Tennessee appeals.
Full docket timeline and status · Also part of Kalshi v. Tennessee (Sixth Circuit)
Read and cite it
Cite the opinion
KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, Nos. 26-3196/5235, 2026 FED App. 0272P (6th Cir. Sept. 25, 2026).
Cite this summary
Prediction Market Laws, Sixth Circuit opinion in Kalshi's Ohio and Tennessee appeals (read Nov. 7, 2026), https://predictionmarketlaws.com/documents/sixth-circuit-kalshi-v-schuler-opinion.