Home / Play / Michigan federal court denies Polymarket protection for prediction market exchange

Michigan federal court denies Polymarket protection for prediction market exchange

Legal Writer

Publish Date: Jun 22, 2026

Fact checked by: Matt Moreno

Key Points

A federal district court denied Polymarket’s request for injunctive relief against Michigan authorities
Denial allows Michigan gambling regulators and law enforcement to proceed with actions aimed at restricting Polymarket access in the state
Polymarket has appeal options, but that could prove futile given actions already taken by the appellate court

A preemptive lawsuit from Polymarket against Michigan officials has failed to produce the desired result for the company in the short term. Although Michigan’s attorney general and the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) have yet to take action against Polymarket regarding trading of sports event contracts on its platform, Polymarket has no court order preventing such action after a judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Polymarket’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking such developments.

Polymarket based its request for such relief on the fact that Michigan authorities have sued Kalshi on the same premise. While Polymarket can appeal the decision of the Western District of Michigan, its primary appeal option appears far from friendly to that cause at this time.

Federal judge rejects Polymarket bid for order enjoining Michigan officials

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel sued Kalshi in state court in early March, and fewer than two days later, Polymarket filed its complaint in the Western District of Michigan. The brief argued that similar action from Nessel was imminent for Polymarket.

In the lawsuit against Kalshi, Michigan alleges that the trading of sports event contracts on the exchange fits the state’s definition of sports wagering and therefore Kalshi was violating Michigan law by offering such gambling without a license. As a result, Nessel asked the court to order Kalshi to cease offering sport event contracts to people in Michigan and impose appropriate fines.

However, federal Judge Paul Maloney wrote in his denial that Polymarket failed to substantiate that it had a significant chance of success on the merits of its complaint against Nessel and others. Additionally, Maloney opined that the people of Michigan’s potential harms from blocking Nessel’s attempts to enforce state gambling laws outweighed the damage that Polymarket might sustain from such efforts.

Neither the MGCB nor Nessel has announced lawsuits against Polymarket since Maloney’s decision dropped. That gives Polymarket a window to appeal Maloney’s ruling, but whether that will actually happen is questionable given the recent history at the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sixth Circuit has already weighed in on similar legal questions

The Sixth Circuit has already fielded an appeal from Kalshi regarding state gambling law enforcement actions taken by officials in Ohio. The Sixth Circuit declined to overturn the lower court’s ruling that denied Kalshi an injunction identical to that which Polymarket sought against Michigan officials.

Both Michigan district courts are in the Sixth Circuit’s jurisdiction, adding doubt to whether an appeal of Maloney’s decision for Polymarket would prove worth the expense. The Sixth Circuit has already consolidated an appeal from Tennessee authorities in their dispute with Kalshi with the Ohio case, meaning that an appeal from Polymarket might merely be part of the consolidation should Polymarket go that route.

Polymarket will still get its day in court at the Western District of Michigan, as Maloney has only ruled against the preliminary injunction request. Because of Polymarket’s appeal route, that decision is likely to stand for now.

If you're looking for more news and updates, visit the Ballislife Play page.

Play

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

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 ...

by Derek Helling

Sep 11, 2026