Nevada Court Blocks Kalshi From Offering Sports, Election & Entertainment Contracts
Key Facts
- A Carson City judge granted the Nevada Gaming Control Board’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Kalshi.
- The TRO bars Kalshi from offering or facilitating sports-, election-, and entertainment-related event contracts in Nevada and also bars access to those markets by people under 21 in the state.
- The order lasts 14 days, with a hearing on Nevada’s request for a preliminary injunction set for April 3 at 1:30 p.m. in the First Judicial District Court.
- Nevada regulators say Kalshi has been offering event contracts without a state gaming license and in violation of multiple Nevada statutes.
Nevada Wins Its First Immediate Court Order Against Kalshi
Nevada’s First Judicial District Court granted a temporary restraining order requested by the Nevada Gaming Control Board, ordering Kalshi to stop offering sports-, election-, and entertainment-related event contracts in the state. The order followed Nevada’s February civil enforcement action and came after months of dispute that began with the Board’s March 4, 2025 cease-and-desist letter to Kalshi.
The Board’s position has been consistent: these contracts are not simply novel financial products but wagering activity that falls within Nevada gaming law and therefore requires state licensure. In its March 20 release, the Board said Kalshi had been offering event-based contracts in Nevada “without a state gaming license and without complying with Nevada gaming law,” and that the court had ordered the company “to immediately stop its unlicensed gaming activities.”
Mike Dreitzer, chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, added in a statement that “Kalshi has repeatedly stated that its operations are legal in 50 states, which is clearly not true.” He also said, “Prediction markets, to the extent they facilitate unlicensed gambling, are illegal in Nevada, and we have a statutory duty to protect the public. We want people in the state to wager safely at a licensed book.”
Why the judge sided with Nevada for now
Judge Jason Woodbury’s order found the Board is “reasonably likely to prevail on the merits” at this stage. The court said the early record indicated Kalshi is not licensed under the Nevada Gaming Control Act and that its event contracts on sports, elections and entertainment fit Nevada’s definitions of wagering activity, including a “sports pool” and “percentage game.”
The order also rejected, at least for purposes of temporary relief, Kalshi’s argument that federal law displaces state enforcement. The court described federal preemption here as “nuanced and rapidly evolving” but said “the balance of convincing legal authority weighs against federal preemption in this context.” It concluded that the Commodity Exchange Act, “fairly interpreted, does not vest exclusive jurisdiction over KALSHI event contracts with the CFTC,” leaving Nevada free to pursue its enforcement action.
The immediate procedural timeline
The TRO is limited to 14 days under Nevada rules, and the court has already set an April 3 hearing on Nevada’s motion for a preliminary injunction. That next hearing matters more than the TRO itself, as temporary restraining orders are merely designed to preserve the status quo. A preliminary injunction would signal that Nevada has persuaded the court there is a stronger basis for keeping Kalshi out of these markets while the broader case proceeds.
The order came after the federal venue fight broke against Kalshi. Earlier this month, a federal judge remanded Nevada’s enforcement action back to state court, finding the case arose under state law and that the Commodity Exchange Act did not completely preempt Nevada’s claims. That remand order also noted the Ninth Circuit had scheduled oral argument in Kalshi’s separate appeal for April 16. Reporting this week also indicated the Ninth Circuit denied Kalshi’s emergency stay request before the TRO was entered, clearing the way for Nevada to return to state court for immediate relief.
Why This Matters For Bettors
State regulators have now shown they can do more than send warning letters. Nevada obtained a court order that immediately cuts off major categories of Kalshi’s product inside one of the most important regulated betting states in the country. That is significant even for users outside Nevada, because it weakens the idea that sports event contracts can expand nationwide with federal registration alone.
This also sharpens the commercial distinction between licensed sportsbooks and prediction markets. Nevada’s court accepted, for now, the regulator’s view that Kalshi’s sports-event contracts function enough like sports wagering to fall under state gaming law. If other states adopt that reasoning, the issue stops being an abstract policy debate and becomes an operational problem: geofencing, state-by-state withdrawals, product restrictions, and a less credible claim of broad availability.
The broader industry significance is jurisdictional. Kalshi’s model depends on the argument that CFTC oversight can coexist with, or override, state gambling enforcement when the product is listed as an event contract on a federally regulated exchange. Nevada is arguing the opposite: if the product is wagering under state law, the state keeps the right to police it. The court did not finally resolve that conflict, but it gave Nevada a meaningful early win and did so in a state whose gaming regulatory framework carries weight far beyond its borders.
That makes this case a possible blueprint. Other states do not need to copy Nevada word for word, but they now have a recent order they can cite when arguing that sports-related event contracts should be treated as unlicensed betting unless the operator has state approval. Whether that becomes a national pattern will depend on how later injunction hearings and appeals develop, but the path has become clearer.
What Happens Next
The next date to watch is April 3, when the Nevada court will hear the Board’s motion for a preliminary injunction. If Nevada gets that relief, the immediate interruption becomes more than a short-term pause and turns into a sustained state-level shutdown while the merits are litigated.
Beyond Nevada, the market will be watching whether more regulators move from cease-and-desist letters to court enforcement. Nevada’s public statements already frame this as part of a broader effort to restrict “all unlicensed prediction markets” known to be operating in the state. That language suggests the Board sees this as category enforcement, not a one-off fight with a single operator.
For Kalshi, the strategic question remains the same: whether it can keep persuading courts that federal commodities law preempts state gambling law for these products. For sportsbooks and their regulators, Nevada’s order is evidence that state enforcement remains a live and potentially effective tool.
Marcus has spent over 20 years navigating the legal side of online betting - from his early days consulting for offshore operators to helping licensed U.S. sportsbooks launch in regulated markets. He’s worked with compliance teams, reviewed licensing frameworks in 15+ states, and advised on some of the biggest regulatory shifts since PASPA was repealed.
At BettingScanner, Marcus serves as the voice of reason - translating legalese into plain English and helping bettors understand what’s legal, what’s risky, and where the gray areas live. If you’re ever unsure about the rules, Marcus is your man - as he probably helped write them.
