Federal appeals judges have rejected Kalshi’s emergency request to pause enforcement in its legal fight with Nevada regulators, a procedural setback that could allow the state to move swiftly to shut down the prediction-market operator’s activities.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday denied Kalshi’s motion for an administrative stay, according to posts on X by sports-betting and gaming attorney Daniel Wallach. 

The decision removes a temporary shield that would have blocked Nevada from pursuing civil enforcement while the court considers a broader request for relief.

It comes as U.S. regulators and state authorities are taking a harder line against prediction markets that allow users to wager on real-world events, testing the boundaries between federally regulated derivatives and state gambling laws.



With no stay in place, Nevada is now free to file a civil enforcement action in the state court as early as Tuesday evening, Wallach said, adding that a temporary restraining order is expected within days. 

Such an order would likely force Kalshi to halt operations in the state while the dispute proceeds.

The case centers on whether Kalshi’s event-based contracts fall under federal commodities regulation, overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or whether states retain authority to restrict the products as unlawful sports betting or gaming.

Kalshi has argued that federal law preempts state enforcement, pointing to its status as a CFTC-regulated exchange.

Nevada regulators have rejected that view, asserting jurisdiction over products offered to residents within the state.

Wallach said Kalshi’s next move could be an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially as soon as Tuesday night. 

The court’s emergency, or “shadow,” docket allows justices to issue short-term administrative stays to preserve the status quo while lower-court proceedings continue.

Such intervention is discretionary and typically reserved for cases where immediate enforcement would cause irreparable harm.

The Ninth Circuit’s denial does not resolve the underlying legal questions, but it shifts near-term leverage toward Nevada, increasing the likelihood of rapid enforcement absent of a Supreme Court action.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。