Prediction Markets Litigation Tracker: Court of Appeals Cases
Track significant prediction markets cases at the appellate level, including pending appeals, issues under review, and decisions that may influence the evolving legal landscape.
Last updated: October 28, 2026
Prediction markets — platforms where participants buy and sell contracts tied to future events — have gone from academic curiosity to front-page news in barely two years. The 2024 presidential election brought these platforms into the public view, and sports-related contracts have since become a principal driver of explosive growth. Global trading volume on leading platforms accelerated sharply through 2025 and 2026, attracting the attention of federal regulators, state gaming commissions, tribal gaming authorities, and the courts alike.
That growth has also generated a collision between regulatory paradigms. Courts are thus grappling with the following question — are prediction markets federally regulated derivatives or are they state-regulated gambling — or some combination of the two? The answer carries enormous consequences for platform operators, investors, sports leagues, gaming licensees, and the consumers who trade on these exchanges.
To help clients and stakeholders navigate this fast-moving area, Foley & Lardner’s Sports and Entertainment Group has developed a comprehensive Prediction Markets Litigation Tracker.
Kalshi, Inc. v. CFTC
D.C. Circuit
Appeal No. 24-5205
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Kalshi challenged the CFTC’s order blocking congressional control sports event contracts, arguing that the CFTC exceeded statutory authority and the contracts are not “gaming.”
CFTC argued contracts involve “gaming” or are “contrary to public interest.”
District court ruled in favor of Kalshi, vacating the agency order and permitting prediction markets use of sports event contracts (September 2024).
Current Case Status:
D.C. Circuit first denied CFTC’s motion for a stay without prejudice, absolving the administrative stay, before seven months later granting CFTC’s unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal, dismissing the case. 2025 WL 1349979 (D.C. Cir. May 7, 2025)
KalshiEx LLC v. Martin, et al. AND
N. Am. Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. Martin, et al. (stayed case)
Fourth Circuit
Appeal No. 25-1892
Stayed Case:
No. 1:25-CV-01285
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Kalshi moved to preliminarily enjoin Maryland gaming regulators from enforcing state gaming laws against sports event contracts, arguing the CEA grants the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over its sports event contracts and preempts Maryland gaming laws. Maryland contends that its sports wagering laws apply to Kalshi’s sports event contracts and are not preempted by the CEA. District court denied Kalshi’s motion for preliminary injunction (August 2025).
Current Case Status:
Between May 22, 2026 and October 1, 2026, the Parties have filed supplemental authorities.
On September 12, 2026, the judge granted the motion to stay proceedings pending appeal.
On September 25, 2026, Kalshi filed a notice with the Court to advise that the CFTC is expected to issue new regulation that would authorize designated contracts to list Kalshi’s sports event contracts and asks that the Court wait for the new regulation to go into effect before issuing a decision on Kalshi’s motion for preliminary injunction. Appeal remains pending. On October 9, 2026, the State defendants responded to Kalshi’s September 25, 2026 letter, arguing that the Court can reject Kalshi’s preemption arguments and that the Court can issue a decision in the case without waiting until the CFTC revision takes effect.
(4th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025)
State of Nev. ex rel. Nev. Gaming Control Bd. v. KalshiEx, LLC AND
State of Nev. ex rel. Nev. Gaming Control Bd. v. Blockratize, Inc, et al.
Ninth Circuit
Appeal Nos.:
Appeal No. 26-1304
Appeal No. 26-1343
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Nevada filed suit against Kalshi and Blockratize for violations of Navada state gaming laws, contending their sports event contracts constituted unlawful gaming activity subject to Nevada gaming laws. Kalshi argued that its event contracts are governed by the CEA and fall within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. District court denied Kalshi’s and Blockratize’s emergency motions for a stay pending appeal of the order granting the motion to remand (March 2026).
Current Case Status:
Ninth Circuit denied Kalshi’s motion for a stay pending appeal on May 21, 2026 and granted Kalshi’s motion to extend time to file a brief on June 15, 2026. On August 28, 2026, Ninth Circuit denied Polymarket’s motion to reconsider the nondispositive order entered on July 27, 2026. On September 22, 2026, the Ninth Circuit granted Kalshi’s motion to extend time to file its Opening Brief. On September 23, 2026, the Ninth Circuit granted an unopposed motion to extend time to file a response brief. Appeal remains pending. (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2026)
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Campbell, et al. AND
QCX LLC v. Campbell, et al. AND
Underdog Exchange DCM, Inc., et al. v. Campbell, et al.
Appeal No. 26-1257
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Robinhood sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Massachusetts AG and the Chair and Commissioners of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission declaring that the CEA preempts enforcement of Massachusetts’ sports wagering laws as to event contracts traded on a DCM. District court denied Robinhood’s motion for preliminary injunction as moot and allowed the defendants’ motion to dismiss before dismissing the case as unripe for review since Massachusetts stipulated it would not pursue action against Robinhood while a separate case against Kalshi proceeds in state court (March 2026).
In QCX LLC, On March 5, 2026, the district court granted the joint motion to stay proceedings and stipulation of dismissal without prejudice as to several defendants. This case is administratively closed until “Kalshi has exhausted its state appellate rights” and may be later reopened in accordance with the stipulation. (March 2026)
Current Case Status:
On August 10, 2026, the Parties completed briefing on the ripeness issue, and there will be oral argument on November 4, 2026 to determine if the case is ripe. Appeal remains pending. (1st Cir. Mar. 23, 2026)
KalshiEx LLC v. Flaherty, et al. AND
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Flaherty, et al. (stayed case)
Third Circuit
Appeal No. 25-1922
Stayed Case:
No. 1:25-CV-14723
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Kalshi moved to preliminarily enjoin the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement from enforcing New Jersey law against Kalshi’s sports event contracts. New Jersey argued that Kalshi’s event contracts were not “swaps” covered by the CEA and that the contracts can be regulated by New Jersey and other states. District court ruled in favor of Kalshi, granting its preliminary injunction (Apr. 2025).
Current Case Status:
Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting Kalshi’s preliminary injunction to preclude New Jersey from regulating its sports event contracts, reasoning that because the sports event contracts are traded on a CFTC-licensed DCM and depend on event outcomes associated with economic consequences, they fit within the CEA’s definition of “swaps” subject to the CFTC’s jurisdiction. The defendants filed a cert petition on September 2, 2026, for Supreme Court review of whether the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act preempts States from regulating sports bets occurring in their jurisdictions if such bets are offered on markets registered with the CFTC. The cert petition is currently pending (Case No. 26-299). On September 22, 2026, The National Council of Legislators from Gaming States filed an Amicus Brief. Appeal remains pending. 172 F.4th 220 (3d Cir. Apr. 6, 2026)
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Nessel, et al. AND
QCX, LLC, dba Polymarket US v. Nessel, et al.
Sixth Circuit
Appeal No. 26-1542
Appeal No. 26-1552
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Robinhood and Polymarket moved to preliminary enjoin Michigan and its state officials from criminalizing sports event contracts that the CEA gives the CFTC exclusive authority to regulate, arguing its products are derivatives that Michigan cannot regulate since it is not “gambling.” District court denied Robinhood and Polymarket’s motions for preliminary injunction, declining to follow the Third Circuit’s April 2026 holding in Flaherty and the Middle District of Tennessee’s February 2026 holding in Orgel and finding that its products were not “swaps” and Michigan law was not preempted. (June 2026).
Current Case Status:
On August 24, 2026, multiple parties filed Amicus Briefs, including the CFTC and the Coalition for Prediction Markets. Between August 24, 2026, and September 23, 2026, multiple parties filed Amicus Briefs, including the CFTC and Tribal Amici (large group of Tribal Nations). On September 15, 2026, the defendants filed their Appellee Brief, arguing field preemption does not apply, Michigan’s sports betting laws do not conflict with federal law, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the balance of harms weighed in Michigan’s favor. Appeal remains pending. (6th Cir. June 23, 2026)
CFTC, et al. v. Johnson, et al.
Ninth Circuit
Appeal No. 26-4281
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The CFTC sought a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and declaratory relief under the CEA, challenging Arizona’s regulation of its sport event contracts and arguing that Arizona is preempted by federal law from enjoining CFTC-regulated prediction markets and the CEA grants the CFTC exclusive authority to regulate sport event contracts. Crypto.com, a client of Foley, is an intervenor. District court granted the CFTC’s motion for preliminary injunction and dissolved the earlier granted TRO (May 2026).
Current Case Status:
Ninth Circuit granted a joint motion to stay appellate proceedings on July 21, 2026. On September 14, 2026, the State of Arizona filed a motion for summary disposition or to dismiss. On September 24, 2026, the CFTC filed a response, and the plaintiffs filed a reply on October 1, 2026. Appeal remains pending. (9th Cir. July 6, 2026)
KalshiEx LLC v. Cox, et al.
Tenth Circuit
Appeal No. 26-4100
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Kalshi challenged Utah’s regulation of its sports event contracts, arguing that the CEA preempts Utah state gaming laws. Utah state regulators argued the contracts constituted sports wagering subject to state regulation. District court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Kalshi’s motion for preliminary injunction and motion to file an amicus brief, holding that the CEA does not preempt Utah’s gaming laws (August 2026).
Current Case Status:
Tenth Circuit denied Kalshi’s motion for injunction pending appeal on September 8, 2026. On September 28, 2026, multiple parties filed Amicus Briefs, including the CFTC. Appeal remains pending. (10th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026)
KalshiEx LLC v. Cafferelli, et al. AND
Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Tong, et al. AND
KalshiEx LLC v. Williams, et al. (three consolidated cases)
Second Circuit
Appeal No. 26-2239
Appeal No. 26-2297
Appeal No. 26-1835
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The two prediction markets (Coinbase and Kalshi) sought preliminary injunctions to enjoin Connecticut gaming regulators from enforcing state gambling laws against their sports event contracts, asserting CEA preemption and exclusive CFTC jurisdiction. Connecticut contended state gaming laws applied because the contracts constituted gambling, not federally protected swaps. District court denied Coinbase’s and Kalshi’s motions for injunction pending appeal and request for administrative relief (August 2026).
Current Case Status:
On September 3, 2026, the Second Circuit issued an order directing the appeals for Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Tong, et al. (No. 26-2297), KalshiEX LLC v. Cafferelli, et al. (No. 26-2239) and KalshiEX LLC v. Williams, et al. (No. 26-1835) to be heard in tandem with this appeal. On on September 4, 2026, Coinbase filed a reply brief to the defendants’ opposition to its motion for injunction pending appeal, and on September 30, 2026, Kalshi filed its opening brief. On October 2, 2026, Kalshi filed its Appellant Brief. Appeal remains pending. (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2026)
United States, et al. v. State of Wisconsin, et al.
(three consolidated cases)
Seventh Circuit
Appeal No. 26-2675
Appeal No. 26-2636
Appeal No. 26-2696
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The United States contended that Wisconsin’s actions are inconsistent with the federal regulatory framework governing event contracts traded on CFTC-regulated markets. Wisconsin contends that it retains authority to enforce state gaming laws. (August 2026)
Current Case Status:
Seventh Circuit denied a motion to expedite appeal on August 24, 2026 and consolidated the Case No. 26-2636, Case No. 26-2696, and Case No. 2636. Appeal remains pending. (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2026)
Consolidated Cases:
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Dreitzer, et al. AND
N. Am. Derivatives Exchange, Inc., d/b/a Crypto.com v. Nev. on Relation of Nev. Gaming Control Bd., et al. AND
Nev. ex rel. Nev. Gaming Control Bd. v. KalshiEx, LLC AND
Nev. ex rel. Nev. Gaming Control Bd. v. Blockratize, Inc., et al. AND
KalshiEX LLC v. Assad, et al. AND
KalshiEX LLC v. Dreitzer, et al. (consolidated cases)
Stayed Cases Pending Resolution of The Above Cases:
KalshiEX LLC, et al. v. Johnson, et al. AND
State of Wash. v. KalshiEx LLC
Ninth Circuit
Consolidated Appeal Nos.:
Appeal No. 25-7831 (Dreitzer)
Appeal No. 25-7516 (Assad)
Appeal No. 25-7187 (Crypto.com)
Appeal No. 26-1304
Appeal No. 26-1343
Stayed Cases Appeal Nos.:
Appeal No. 26-2978 (Johnson) (Crypto.com)
Appeal No. 26-3106 (State of Wash.)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Consolidated Cases:
The Ninth Circuit consolidated these three cases for argument and issued its opinion concurrently in all three cases. In all three cases, the prediction markets (Robinhood, Crypto.com, and Kalshi) sought to enjoin Nevada gaming regulators from enforcing Nevada gaming laws on sports event contracts, arguing the CEA grants the CFTC exclusive regulatory authority over such contracts and preempts state gaming regulation. Nevada regulators argued the contracts were sports wagering subject to state gaming laws. District court denied the prediction markets’ motions. (August 2026).
Stayed Cases Pending Resolution of the Above Cases:
In Johnson, Kalshi moved to preliminarily enjoin Arizona’s enforcement of its gaming laws against sports event contracts, arguing the CEA grants exclusive jurisdiction to the CFTC and preempts state regulation. Arizona contends the contracts are subject to state gaming laws.
In State of Wash., the Washington AG sued Kalshi, asserting its online sports event contracts violate the Washington Gambling Act and Consumer Protection Act. Kalshi contended its contracts were subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction and cannot be regulated by Washington. District court denied the State of Washington’s motion to remand (May 2026).
Current Case Status:
Consolidated Cases:
Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of the prediction markets’ motions, finding that sports event contracts were not “swaps” or “options,” the CEA does not preempt Nevada’s gaming regulation, the CFTC did not have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate all trading on DCMs, neither conflict nor field preemption applied, and the issue of whether sport event contracts were swaps under the CEA did not need to be addressed in a suit brought under the APA against the CFTC. (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2026). A Petition for Certiorari was filed on September 15, 2026 to have the U.S. Supreme Court hear the appeal from the Ninth Circuit in this case.
Stayed Cases Pending Resolution of the Above Cases:
In Johnson, the Ninth Circuit, on June 4, 2026, granted Kalshi’s unopposed motion to stay appellate proceedings pending issuance of decisions in the three consolidated cases above. In State of Wash., the Ninth Circuit, on September 23, 2026, granted the joint motion to stay the briefing schedule. (9th Cir. May 11, 2026)
Blue Lake Rancheria, et al. v. Kalshi, Inc., et al.
Ninth Circuit
Appeal No. 25-7504
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The Tribal Nations alleged that Kalshi and Robinhood’s sports event contracts constitute unlawful gaming that infringes tribal gaming rights protected by Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), tribal law, and tribal sovereignty and that Kalshi’s marketing regarding the legality of those contracts was misleading. Kalshi and Robinhood asserted that the contracts are federally regulated event contracts subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction under the CEA and therefore cannot be prohibited through the asserted tribal-law and related claims Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction on their IGRA and Lanham Act claims. District court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Nov. 2025) and stayed the district court case pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit (May 2026).
Current Case Status:
Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction because the Tribes are likely to succeed on their claims that Kalshi’s event contracts on tribal lands violate IGRA and the Tribes’ gaming ordinances and affirmed the district court’s conclusion that a lay opinion about the contracts’ legality cannot support a Lanham Act claim. The Ninth Circuit remanded back down to the district court. 2026 WL 2728466 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2026) On October 8, 2026, the Court issued a mandate stating that the Court’s judgment on September 16, 2026 takes effect.
Kalshi Inc., et al. v. Ho-Chunk Nation
Seventh Circuit
Appeal No. 26-8020
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Ho-Chunk Nation sued Kalshi, claiming that because people on its tribal land could access Kalshi’s online platform to bet on sports event contracts, Kalshi is offering illegal class III gaming on tribal land in violation of IGRA, the Nation’s Tribal-State Gaming Compact, and its Gaming Ordinance and is in direct competition with the Nation’s own gaming business and depriving the Nation of revenue it could be collecting through its own sports betting and other gaming opportunities. The district court denied Ho-Chunk Nation’s motion for preliminary injunction and motion for leave to amend its complaint; granted the defendants’ motion for certification of interlocutory appeal; dismissed Robinhood Derivatives, LLC and Robinhood Markets, Inc. from the case; and stayed the proceedings pending resolution of the legal questions certified for interlocutory appeal in the Seventh Circuit. 2026 WL 1284077 (W.D. Wisc. Sept. 11, 2026)
Current Case Status:
On September 21, 2026, Kalshi filed a petition to appeal. The Ho-Chunk Nation responded on October 9, 2026. Appeal remains pending.
United States v. State of Minn., et al.
Eighth Circuit
Appeal No. 26-2905
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Multiple prediction markets sought to enjoin Minnesota’s enforcement of Minn. Stat. § 609.7615, subd. 1(e) (“Minnesota Prediction Markets Statute”) makes it a felony for a person to advertise or market financial or technological products that promote transactions prohibited under the law. It went into effect on August 1, 2026. The prediction markets argued that the Minnesota Prediction Markets Statute was preempted by the CEA’s conferral of exclusive jurisdiction on the CFTC for transactions involving swaps. The district court granted CFTC, Kalshi, and Polymarket’s motions for preliminary injunction and held that, until a final decision is reached these cases, the defendants are enjoined from enforcing Minn. Stat. § 609.7615 against entities registered as designated contract markets by the CFTC. 2026 WL 2150211 (D. Minn. July 27, 2026)
Current Case Status:
On September 21, 2026, the Eighth Circuit set the briefing schedule for the case. Appeal remains pending.
KalshiEx LLC v. Bird, et al.
Eighth Circuit
Appeal No. 26-2874
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Kalshi sought declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of Iowa’s regulation on it as a prediction market by arguing that the CEA preempts Iowa’s gambling laws. On September 8, 2026, the district court denied Kalshi’s motion for preliminary injunction, finding that it did not establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its argument that the CEA preempts Iowa gambling laws and regulations. 2026 WL 2691009 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 8, 2026)
Current Case Status:
On September 30, 2026, Kalshi filed a statement of issues and method of appendix preparation. On October 28, 2026, the Court granted Kalshi’s motion for extension of time to file brief until December 7, 2026. Appeal remains pending.
KalshiEx LLC v. Schuler, et al. AND
KalshiEx LLC v. Orgel, et al. (two consolidated cases)
Stayed Cases Pending Resolution of The Above Cases:
Nessel v. KalshiEx LLC AND
Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Nessel, et al.
Sixth Circuit
Consolidated Appeal Nos. 26-3196 (S.D. Ohio) and 26-5235 (M.D. Tenn.)
Stayed Cases Appeal Nos.:
Appeal No. 26-1639 (same appeal number for Kalshi and Coinbase)
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
Kalshi moved to preliminarily enjoin Ohio and Tennessee from enforcing state gaming laws against sports event contracts, arguing CEA preemption and exclusive CFTC jurisdiction. The state regulators contended the sports event contracts were subject to state gaming regulation. Southern District of Ohio denied Kalshi’s motion for preliminary injunction (Mar. 2026), but the Middle District of Tennessee granted Kalshi’s same motion. (Feb. 2026).
In Nessel, et al. v. KalshiEX LLC, the Michigan AG filed a state court enforcement action against Kalshi alleging that its sports event contracts violate state sport betting law, seeking an order “declaring Kalshi’s internet sports betting operation a common law nuisance,” and seeking a permanent injunction and order of abatement enjoining Kalshi from “engaging in or advertising Kalshi’s internet sports betting operation.” Kalshi removed the case, asserting that whether the CEA preempts state gaming regulations as applied to DCMs raises “serious questions” currently before multiple federal courts. District court granted the State’s motion to remand, and Kalshi appealed the remand order (July 2026).
In Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Nessel, et al., Coinbase sought declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction to enjoin Michigan Gaming Control Board’s members in their official capacities and the Michigan AG in her official capacity from pursuing civil or criminal enforcement against it under Michigan’s gambling laws for facilitating access to “sports event contracts.”
Current Case Status:
On September 8, 2026, Kalshi submitted a letter arguing that the Ninth Circuit’s August 28, 2026 decision in Assad should be followed. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, affirming the Southern District of Ohio’s denial of Kalshi’s motion for preliminary injunction, vacated the Middle District of Tennessee’s grant of Kalshi’s motion for preliminary injunction, and remanded the case. 2026 WL 2884087 (6th Cir. Sept. 25, 2026)
On October 9, 2026, Kalshi filed a petition for rehearing en banc covering both appeals for the Court to reconsider its ruling, not to grant a rehearing or reinstate the injunction.
In Nessel v. KalshiEX LLC, the Sixth Circuit granted a motion for a briefing abeyance on August 24, 2026, holding briefing in abeyance pending resolution of KalshiEX, LLC v. Schuler (No. 26-3196) and KalshiEX, LLC v. Orgel (No. 26-5235). On October 16, 2026, Kalshi filed a status report asking the Court to await a decision by the en banc Court regarding whether to rehear Schuler and Orgel before determining how to proceed in this appeal. Appeal remains pending. (6th Cir. July 27, 2026)
United States, et al. v. State of Conn., et al. AND
State of Conn. v. United States, et al.
Second Circuit
Appeal No. 26-2648
Summary of Allegations/Defenses:
The CFTC filed suit against Connecticut AG and the Connecticut Gaming Commission declaring that the CEA preempts enforcement of Connecticut’s sports wagering laws as to event contracts traded on a DCM. (April 2026).
Current Case Status:
On May 8, 2026, Crypto.com filed a motion to intervene, and on June 29, 2026, Robinhood Derivatives, LLC filed a motion to intervene. On September 22, 2026, the CFTC filed a motion for joinder related to its pending motion for preliminary injunction.