CFTC Clash Deepens as Nevada Targets Kalshi

Key Insights

• Ninth Circuit cleared Nevada to sue Kalshi.
• Nevada alleged unlicensed sports wagering activity.
• CFTC backed federal oversight of event contracts.

Nevada sued Kalshi on Tuesday after the Ninth Circuit denied the company’s bid to block state enforcement over sports prediction markets. The ruling allowed the Nevada Gaming Control Board to file a civil action in state court alleging unlicensed wagering. The dispute deepened a jurisdictional clash between state gaming regulators and federal commodities oversight.

The Kalshi lawsuit reflected a broader fight over prediction market regulation in the United States. Several states challenged event-based contracts that resembled sports betting, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission asserted exclusive authority over designated contract markets. That tension intensified as political ties and crypto firms entered parallel litigation.

Appeals Court Cleared Path For Enforcement

Court records showed the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Kalshi’s request to maintain an injunction against Nevada regulators. The decision removed a temporary block that had shielded the company since earlier federal proceedings. That outcome allowed state authorities to resume enforcement efforts immediately.

Nevada Gaming Control Board filings argued Kalshi offered contracts that allowed users to wager on sporting outcomes without a state license. Regulators maintained that the products met the statutory definition of sports betting under Nevada law. They contended that operating without compliance violated state gaming statutes.

Kalshi responded by seeking to move the dispute into federal court. The company argued that its contracts fell under exclusive federal jurisdiction because they qualified as commodity derivatives. This procedural move aimed to shift the venue away from Nevada’s courts and back into a commodities framework.

Federal Jurisdiction Argument Intensifies

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s public statements reinforced Kalshi’s position on jurisdiction. Earlier that day, CFTC Chair Mike Selig said the agency filed an amicus brief backing Crypto.com in a similar Nevada dispute. That filing argued states cannot reclassify swaps trading on designated contract markets as illegal gambling.

Selig stated that event contracts qualify as commodity derivatives and remain within the agency’s regulatory remit. His comments signaled the CFTC would defend what it considers exclusive authority over such markets. That stance framed the Nevada case as part of a wider federal-state boundary test.

Crypto.com had faced its own cease-and-desist order from Nevada regulators and later appealed adverse rulings. The parallel litigation suggested regulators targeted prediction markets that blurred the line between sports betting and derivatives trading. This convergence of lawsuits increased pressure on courts to clarify jurisdiction.

Political Links And Market Expansion Plans

Public disclosures showed Kalshi maintained advisory ties with Donald Trump Jr. since January 2025. He also advised Polymarket after investing in the rival platform the previous August. These affiliations drew political attention as prediction markets expanded beyond traditional crypto audiences.

Trump Media and Technology Group had announced plans in October to integrate prediction markets into its Truth Social platform through a partnership with Crypto.com. That initiative signaled mainstream ambitions for event-based contracts tied to political and sports outcomes. The expansion increased scrutiny from regulators concerned about consumer protection and licensing compliance.

The Nevada complaint reiterated that any entity offering sports-related wagering within the state must secure a license and adhere to gaming law. Regulators argued that access to such contracts within Nevada triggered local oversight regardless of federal commodities claims. This interpretation directly conflicted with the CFTC’s position on exclusive jurisdiction.

Kalshi’s federal motion contended that accepting Nevada’s framing would require a narrow reading of federal commodity exchange statutes. The company maintained that Congress vested oversight of designated contract markets solely in the CFTC. That legal theory set up a constitutional-style preemption debate.

The outcome carried implications beyond one state. If Nevada prevailed, other states could pursue similar enforcement actions against prediction market platforms. If federal courts sided with Kalshi, state regulators might face limits when challenging derivatives-style contracts.

The immediate focus shifted to venue and procedural rulings. Courts must determine whether the case proceeds in Nevada state court or returns to federal jurisdiction. That decision will shape how judges assess the underlying question of whether event contracts resemble gambling or derivatives.

For now, Kalshi’s sports contracts faced renewed legal risk in Nevada. The next key development will likely emerge from a ruling on the federal transfer motion in the coming weeks.