• Home
• Nevada Judge Extends Ban on Kalshi Sports Contracts

Nevada Judge Extends Ban on Kalshi Sports Contracts

Nevada Judge Extends Ban on Kalshi Sports Contracts – State Court Sides With Gaming Regulator in Ongoing Jurisdiction Dispute

Key Takeaways

• A Nevada state judge extended a temporary ban on Kalshi’s sports-related prediction contracts.
• The court indicated it will grant a preliminary injunction requested by the Nevada Gaming Control Board.
• The judge stated that Kalshi’s sports contracts are indistinguishable from traditional gambling.
• Kalshi argues it is federally regulated as a designated contract market, while state regulators claim jurisdiction over gambling products.
• The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has supported prediction market providers in related legal disputes.

Nevada Court Extends Temporary Restraining Order Against Kalshi

A state judge in Nevada has extended a temporary restraining order that prevents prediction market provider Kalshi from offering certain contracts in the state. The decision was issued by Judge Jason Woodbury of the First Judicial District Court during a hearing in Carson City.

The original temporary restraining order, granted on March 20, blocked Kalshi from offering contracts related to sports, entertainment and elections in Nevada. On April 4, the judge extended that order by two weeks to finalize the wording of a forthcoming preliminary injunction.

According to statements made during the hearing and reported by Reuters, Judge Woodbury indicated that he would grant the Nevada Gaming Control Board’s request for a preliminary injunction. This injunction would prohibit Kalshi from offering specific prediction market contracts in Nevada until the broader legal dispute between the company and the state regulator is resolved.

Spokespeople for both Kalshi and the Nevada Gaming Control Board did not respond to requests for comment.

Judge Finds Sports Contracts “Indistinguishable” From Gambling

During the hearing, the court addressed whether Kalshi’s sports-related contracts constitute regulated financial instruments or fall under state gambling law. Judge Woodbury stated that purchasing a contract tied to the outcome of a baseball game on Kalshi was “indistinguishable” from placing a bet through a licensed state gaming platform.

Based on the arguments presented in court, the judge concluded that the activity qualifies as gaming under Nevada law. He stated that it is a gaming activity prohibited for any non-licensee to engage in within the state.

This interpretation forms the basis for the extended ban. Nevada’s regulatory framework requires entities offering gambling products to obtain appropriate state licenses. By characterizing Kalshi’s sports contracts as gaming activity, the court signaled that the company would be subject to those requirements if it seeks to operate in Nevada.

For users in Nevada, the ruling means that access to Kalshi’s sports-related prediction markets remains blocked while litigation continues.

State Regulators Challenge Prediction Market Providers Nationwide

The Nevada case reflects a broader regulatory conflict across the United States. State regulators in multiple jurisdictions have moved to restrict prediction market platforms that offer contracts tied to sports outcomes.

These regulators argue that sports-related prediction contracts resemble traditional gambling products and therefore fall under state-level gaming oversight. From their perspective, allowing such products without a state license undermines established gambling regulations.

Kalshi and other prediction market providers take a different position. They argue that their platforms operate as federally regulated designated contract markets offering swaps, a category of derivative product. Under this interpretation, oversight would fall primarily under federal commodities law rather than state gambling statutes.

This disagreement has led to parallel legal proceedings in several states, creating uncertainty for platforms and users about which regulatory regime applies.

CFTC Supports Federal Oversight in Ongoing Legal Disputes

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has aligned itself with prediction market providers in the broader jurisdictional debate. The agency, led by Chairman Mike Selig, previously filed an amicus brief in an appeals court case earlier this year supporting the view that it is the appropriate regulator.

In addition, the CFTC filed lawsuits alongside the Department of Justice against the states of Arizona, Illinois and Connecticut. According to the filings, the federal agencies argue that those states are infringing on the CFTC’s regulatory role by attempting to block federally regulated products.

On the same day as the Nevada hearing, a separate proceeding took place in federal court in Arizona. In that case, Kalshi sought to prevent Arizona regulators from taking action to block its products. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes had previously filed information alleging criminal charges against the company. District Judge Michael Liburdi heard arguments and is considering the motion, according to the court docket.

These parallel cases underscore the ongoing jurisdictional conflict between state gaming authorities and federal commodities regulators.

Implications for Crypto and Prediction Market Users

For users of crypto-based prediction markets and platforms offering event contracts, the Nevada ruling highlights the regulatory uncertainty surrounding sports-related products in the United States.

In states where regulators classify such contracts as gambling, platforms may face restrictions or require local licenses to operate. In contrast, if federal oversight prevails in ongoing court disputes, prediction market providers could continue offering contracts under commodities law.

The outcome of these cases will influence how sports-linked event contracts are categorized and regulated. Until courts provide clearer guidance, access to certain products may vary by state, affecting availability for users depending on their location.

Our Assessment

The Nevada court’s decision extends an existing ban on Kalshi’s sports-related contracts and signals that the state views these products as gambling subject to local licensing rules. At the same time, federal regulators including the CFTC have supported prediction market providers in related disputes, arguing for federal jurisdiction. The case forms part of a broader legal confrontation between state gaming authorities and federal commodities regulators over how sports-based prediction contracts should be classified and supervised.