Ninth Circuit Asked to Pause Nevada Action Against Kalshi

The legal clash between Kalshi and Nevada regulators has intensified, with the federally regulated prediction market platform seeking urgent court intervention to prevent potential enforcement measures.

Good to Know

• Kalshi filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit on February 11, 2026.
• Request seeks a temporary administrative stay to block Nevada civil enforcement action.
• Dispute centers on whether prediction market contracts fall under federal commodities law or state gambling rules.

Court filing adds new pressure to a broader debate over regulation of event contracts, derivatives trading, and sports betting style products that operate across jurisdictional lines.

Emergency Filing to Pause State Action

Kalshi submitted the motion under Circuit Rule 27-3, asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to intervene before February 16, 2026. Case appears as KalshiEX LLC v. Kirk D. Hendrick et al. under number 25-7516.

Company argues Nevada officials threatened civil enforcement despite what it described as a prior understanding to wait while a stay request remained unresolved.

Kalshi claims Nevada “reneged” on an understanding not to initiate civil proceedings while a stay motion was pending.

Administrative stay would not resolve the legal dispute. It would instead freeze enforcement activity while appellate review continues, maintaining current operating conditions.

Federal Oversight and State Gambling Authority Collide

Conflict reflects a deeper regulatory divide. Kalshi operates under oversight tied to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission framework, positioning its markets as federally supervised financial contracts.

Nevada regulators, long recognized for tight control of wagering activity, view certain contracts as equivalent to sports betting offered without state licensure.

Expansion of prediction markets into event driven outcomes has blurred distinctions between derivatives trading and gambling, raising questions about which authority governs such products.

Without court relief, Nevada could pursue penalties or operational restrictions during the appeal process. Even a temporary enforcement step could disrupt partnerships, liquidity, and user participation, according to arguments presented by Kalshi.

Appellate courts generally grant administrative stays only when urgency and risk of irreparable harm are demonstrated. Language in the filing suggests Kalshi believes both conditions apply.

Nevada has not publicly accepted Kalshi characterization of events. Timing of the emergency request indicates the company expects near term regulatory action.