![](\"https:\/\/media.crypto.news\/2026\/05\/IMG_6575.webp\")
<\/p>\nA federal appeals court ruled on Aug. 28 that Kalshi had not shown Nevada\u2019s regulation of its sports-event contracts was likely preempted by federal commodities law. <\/p>\n
\n Summary<\/span>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The unanimous decision allows Nevada gaming authorities to enforce state requirements while litigation continues.<\/p>\n The Ninth Circuit opinion<\/a> also raised concerns under the major-questions doctrine. However, it did not invalidate the Commodity Futures Trading Commission\u2019s proposed event-contract rules or decide whether a future final rule would survive an Administrative Procedure Act lawsuit.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Kalshi argued that its sports-event contracts qualified as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act. Because Kalshi operates a CFTC-regulated designated contract market, it said federal jurisdiction displaced Nevada\u2019s gaming laws.<\/p>\n The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument at the preliminary-injunction stage. It found that the contracts likely fell outside the applicable meaning of \u201cswap\u201d because they functioned as sports bets. The panel consequently rejected Kalshi\u2019s express, conflict and field-preemption arguments.<\/p>\n Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson wrote that \u201cthe CFTC is not a national gambling regulator.\u201d The court said Kalshi\u2019s broader interpretation lacked a limiting principle and did not fit the surrounding statutory framework.<\/p>\n As crypto.news reported<\/a>, the 3-0 ruling affirmed the dissolution of an earlier injunction protecting Kalshi from Nevada enforcement. The panel returned Nevada\u2019s separate election-contract claims to the district court for further review.<\/p>\n Gaming attorney Daniel Wallach argued that the CFTC\u2019s rulemaking was \u201cDOA\u201d<\/strong> because of the court\u2019s major-questions analysis. In an Aug. 29 post<\/a>, he predicted APA litigation in a California federal court.<\/p>\n That prediction extends beyond the court\u2019s direct holding. The opinion said Kalshi\u2019s broad interpretation of \u201cswap\u201d \u201cwould raise concerns under the major-questions doctrine.\u201d It did not hold that the doctrine categorically prevents the CFTC from regulating prediction markets.<\/p>\n Ripple CTO emeritus David Schwartz disputed Wallach\u2019s reading. \u201cThis seems to be incorrect to me,\u201d Schwartz wrote<\/a>. He argued that Congress could create a federal framework for exchange-traded contracts without displacing conventional state-regulated sportsbooks.<\/p>\n Schwartz\u2019s comments represented his interpretation, not a Ripple corporate position or judicial finding. The ruling addressed whether Kalshi had demonstrated a likelihood of success on its preemption claim.<\/p>\n The CFTC\u2019s June proposal<\/a> would amend Rule 40.11, which governs event contracts involving gaming, terrorism, assassination, war and activities unlawful under federal or state law.<\/p>\n The proposal would establish a 90-day review process and define how the agency interprets \u201cgaming\u201d and when a contract \u201cinvolves\u201d an enumerated activity. The CFTC would evaluate covered contracts individually using specified public-interest factors.<\/p>\n The Federal Register notice<\/a> closed for public comments on July 27. The agency can revise, finalize or withdraw the proposal after reviewing those submissions.<\/p>\n A final rule could face an APA challenge over statutory authority, procedure or agency reasoning. Wallach predicted such a lawsuit, but no matching complaint had been verified when the debate emerged.<\/p>\n The Ninth Circuit\u2019s decision conflicts with a Third Circuit ruling favoring Kalshi in its dispute with New Jersey. That disagreement makes Supreme Court review more plausible, although review is not guaranteed.<\/p>\n New Jersey faced a Sept. 3 deadline to seek further review of the Third Circuit decision, according to Reuters. Kalshi could also seek Ninth Circuit rehearing or petition the Supreme Court, but neither action was immediately confirmed.<\/p>\n The jurisdictional dispute extends beyond Nevada. As previously reported in crypto.news coverage of the prediction-market conflict<\/a>, several states classify sports contracts as gambling products requiring local licenses. Kalshi maintains that federal derivatives regulation preempts those requirements.<\/p>\n For now, Nevada can enforce its gaming laws against Kalshi\u2019s sports contracts. The CFTC proposal remains alive, but the Ninth Circuit opinion provides prospective challengers with another argument against any final rule claiming broad authority over sports-event markets.<\/p>\n\n
Kalshi ruling preserves Nevada\u2019s sports-betting authority<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Major-questions language does not end CFTC rulemaking<\/strong><\/h2>\n
CFTC proposal remains pending but faces new risks<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Circuit split raises Supreme Court stakes<\/strong><\/h2>\n