Home / Play / Kalshi, Robinhood Advance Dispute With Nevada Authorities in Separate Court Filings

Kalshi, Robinhood Advance Dispute With Nevada Authorities in Separate Court Filings

Legal Writer

Publish Date: Sep 11, 2026

Fact checked by: Matt Moreno

Key Points

Kalshi has petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing in its lawsuit against Nevada officials
Robinhood has filed a petition with the Supreme Court for a review of the same decision
Simultaneous filings serve different purposes but have a similar goal of protecting sports event contract trading

Kalshi and Robinhood have responded to their defeat at the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with a coordinated and layered effort to reverse the unfavorable ruling while protecting their ability to offer trading of sports event contracts on a short-term basis. There are no guarantees that either petition will result in further consideration of the recent decision from a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit, however.

Sports event contracts remain off the board for traders in Nevada until the courts decide whether to grant Kalshi's and Robinhood's requests. If another filing with the Ninth Circuit is successful, that could be the case in neighboring Arizona as well.

Kalshi asks Ninth Circuit for rehearing of appeal

Kalshi filed its petition for an en banc rehearing of its appeal in Kalshi v. Assad on Wednesday. That is a motion for all of the judges who are on the bench in the court to review a decision issued by a smaller number of their members.

The opinion in question came from a three-judge panel on Aug. 28 and was a resoundingly negative development for Kalshi. The ruling held that Nevada is within its rights to enforce its gambling laws in regard to Kalshi's offering of sports event contracts to people in the state and that such contracts are tantamount to gambling.

Kalshi continues to restrict trading in Nevada as a result, but a rehearing could reverse that decision. The Ninth Circuit does not have to grant Kalshi's en banc request, though.

Additionally, even if the full Ninth Circuit reconsiders the opinion, the full court may affirm the decision. Robinhood is active on another front that could provide favorable intervention for Kalshi in either of those circumstances.

nevada state legislature building the state capitol carson city

Robinhood asks Supreme Court to review case

Robinhood escalated the complaint as Kalshi pulled a lever at the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday. Robinhood is party to Kalshi v. Assad because the federal district court consolidated similar lawsuits.

Robinhood filed a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court in the matter. Like with Kalshi's en banc petition, the Supreme Court is under no obligation to consider the appeal.

In both cases, the simple law of averages is against the hearings. The Ninth Circuit grants fewer than 2% of en banc petitions on an annual basis while the Supreme Court grants certiorari to only a handful of the hundreds of petitions it receives annually.

Denials from both courts could have ramifications beyond Nevada. That could especially prove true in Arizona and in short order.

Arizona asks Ninth Circuit to dissolve injunction

Arizona Department of Gaming Director Jackie Johnson wasted no time after the Ninth Circuit panel issued its opinion in Kalshi v. Assad. Johnson filed an update in her appeal of an injunction marking the opinion.

In that update, counsel for Johnson lays out how the panel opinion nullifies the injunction. The brief argues that because the opinion classifies sports event contract trading as gambling, Arizona officials should have the same freedom to enforce that state's gambling laws as authorities in Nevada enjoy.

The US District Court for the District of Arizona imposed the injunction in May. The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Johnson and others after Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes filed criminal charges against Kalshi related to its sports event contract offerings.

Arizona is also within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction. Johnson's request represents exactly what Kalshi and Robinhood fear.

Restrictions on sports event contract trading would be game-changer for exchanges

Robinhood's petition to the Supreme Court represents risk for Kalshi, itself, and other exchange operators. It's a risk that the companies can't afford to not take due to the prominence of sports event contract trading on their platforms, though.

Such trading represents a significant portion of trading volume on Kalshi and Robinhood. A Supreme Court decision that deems it equivalent to sports wagering and subject to state gambling laws could quickly reduce that volume.

Arizona officials gaining leeway to enforce their gambling laws could be a taste of what could come in that event. Kalshi's en banc petition aims to curtail that result in the short-term.

Meanwhile, Robinhood's Supreme Court writ addresses the future of sports event contract trading. The stakes have never been higher for these companies. At this time, though, they are on the defensive.

Want to read more about the legal disputes over prediction markets? Our Ballislife Play page has all the updates.

Play

Kalshi Says New CFTC Regulation Prompts Review of Sixth Circuit Injunction Decision

Kalshi is continuing its lawsuit against gambling regulators and law enforcement in Ohio and Tennessee. The prediction market exchange operator has asked the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to review a panel decision concerning those cases. Kalshi referred to a recently published rule for designated contract markets in its ...

by Derek Helling

9 hours ago