Kalshi loses two appeals court bids as Nevada, New York and Connecticut enforcement can continue

Kalshi has taken two hits in federal appeals courts while it fights state attempts to classify its sports event contracts as gambling. The practical result is simple: regulators in Nevada, New York and Connecticut can keep enforcing while the broader legal fight keeps moving.

1. The Ninth Circuit rejected Kalshi’s petition for both a panel rehearing and a rehearing en banc over its Nevada ruling in an order dated November 3. A rehearing en banc would have sent the case to a larger group of judges on the appeals court, but no judge called for a vote on full-court review.
2. Kalshi has argued that its event contracts are federally regulated financial products, and that state gambling classification would saddle it with overlapping regulatory requirements. The company also said the Nevada ruling could expose it to civil and criminal liability even though it operates under federal oversight.
3. With the requests denied, Kalshi has 90 days to ask the Supreme Court to review the Nevada decision. Until then, the Ninth Circuit ruling stays in effect, and Nevada regulators can continue enforcement against Kalshi’s sports markets.
4. In a separate decision, the Second Circuit denied requests by Kalshi and Coinbase for injunctions that would have blocked state enforcement of gambling laws against their sports event contracts while appeals continue. The order covered Kalshi’s cases against the New York State Gaming Commission and Connecticut’s Department of Consumer Protection, as well as Coinbase’s case against Connecticut Attorney General William Tong.
5. The three-judge panel said the companies had not shown that temporary injunctions were warranted. That means New York and Connecticut can keep enforcement action going while the underlying legal questions work their way through the appeals process.