U.S. Court Clears Path for Nevada to Take Action Against Kalshi Prediction Market

TheNewsCryptoPublished on 2026-03-20Last updated on 2026-03-20

Abstract

A U.S. appeals court has allowed Nevada to proceed with legal action against prediction market platform Kalshi, denying the company’s request to block a potential temporary restraining order. This could force Kalshi to suspend operations in Nevada for about two weeks until a follow-up hearing. The dispute began in March 2025 when the Nevada Gaming Control Board issued a cease-and-desist order, arguing that Kalshi’s sports-related prediction contracts violate state gambling laws. Kalshi contends that its products are federally regulated by the CFTC, which supports its position. The ruling is a setback for Kalshi and may lead to an imminent temporary ban in the state.

A U.S. appeals court has permitted the state of Nevada to pursue legal action against predictionmarket platform Kalshi. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Kalshi’s request to block a possible temporary restraining order (TRO). If approved, Kalshi may have to stop operating in the state for a short time, likely around two weeks, until the next hearing.

What this Case carries

The problem began in March 2025 when Kalshi received a cease-and-desist order from the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Because it believes that sports-related prediction contracts violate state gambling laws, the regulator asked Kalshi to cease providing them. Kalshi countered that federalregulations, not state regulations, govern its products.

With the court decision, Nevada may now issue a temporary restraining order. Legal experts say that this order could come very soon, and Kalshi could be forced to stop operating in Nevada, and the ban could last at least two weeks.

Kalshi warned that it would face serious harm if the court did not intervene. The firm says that it could face multiple legal cases at the same time, and different courts might give conflicting decisions. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) supports Kalshi’s view. The CFTC says it has authority over prediction markets, while states like Nevada believe they also have control, especially for sports-related products.

The court’s decision represents a setback for Kalshi and provides an opportunity for Nevada to take more robust action. The next few days will be important, as a temporary ban on Kalshi in Nevada could be enforced soon. More updates are expected soon as the state court moves forward with the case.

Highlighted Crypto News:

FBI Issues Warning Over Fake ‘FBI Tokens’ on Tron Network

TagsCryptocurrencyKalshi

Related Questions

QWhat action did the U.S. appeals court allow Nevada to take against Kalshi?

AThe U.S. appeals court permitted Nevada to pursue legal action and denied Kalshi's request to block a possible temporary restraining order (TRO).

QWhy did the Nevada Gaming Control Board issue a cease-and-desist order to Kalshi in March 2025?

AThe Nevada Gaming Control Board issued the order because it believes Kalshi's sports-related prediction contracts violate state gambling laws.

QWhat is Kalshi's argument regarding the regulation of its prediction market products?

AKalshi argues that federal regulations, not state regulations, govern its products.

QWhich federal regulatory body supports Kalshi's position in this case?

AThe Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) supports Kalshi's view, stating it has authority over prediction markets.

QWhat potential immediate consequence could Kalshi face in Nevada following the court's decision?

AKalshi could face a temporary ban on operating in Nevada for at least two weeks if a temporary restraining order is issued.

Related Reads

From Gold to Bitcoin: Fixed Supply + Institutional Frenzy, Might It Repeat the 'Explosive' Price Trend?

"From Gold to Bitcoin: Fixed Supply and Institutional Frenzy May Lead to 'Explosive' Price Rally Analysts suggest Bitcoin's price action could mirror gold's over the past two decades, following the launch of spot Bitcoin ETFs. Gold ETFs, introduced in 2004, drove gold's price surge to a current market cap near $28 trillion. Both gold and Bitcoin are non-yielding stores of value, with prices driven purely by investor sentiment rather than cash flows or credit. Gold ETFs experienced dramatic cycles: explosive growth, painful drawdowns, and slow recoveries, with each cycle reaching higher peaks. Bitcoin ETFs, approved in early 2024, saw rapid institutional adoption but are now facing similar volatility. Recent warnings highlight the risk of significant ETF outflows disrupting the current rebound. BlackRock's IBIT, a leading Bitcoin ETF, has sold nearly 100,000 BTC to meet redemptions while still holding over 733,000. The core parallel is fixed supply: when demand surges, prices explode, but demand is often volatile and wave-like, not steady. Institutional interest, through ETFs and corporate adoption, remains a key support pillar, helping to cushion sell-offs. If Bitcoin captures even a fraction of gold's role as a store of value, its upside potential is immense, though the path will be marked by high volatility. For investors, focusing on long-term trends and managing risk is crucial as this 'price explosion' narrative unfolds."

Foresight News43m ago

From Gold to Bitcoin: Fixed Supply + Institutional Frenzy, Might It Repeat the 'Explosive' Price Trend?

Foresight News43m ago

Why Is AI Agent Shopping Hard to Popularize?

The article argues that the popular narrative of "AI agent shopping" – equipping AI with a wallet to autonomously handle purchases – is fundamentally flawed and oversimplifies the complexity of shopping. It deconstructs shopping into two core actions: **information retrieval** (standardized, easily automated) and **value judgment** (deeply subjective and human-centric). The narrative mistakenly assumes AI can fully handle both. Value judgment itself has two layers: **evaluation** (assessing options against criteria) and **demand definition** (setting the criteria, weights, and values). The latter is inherently human and dynamic, as preferences are not fixed but constructed during the decision-making process ("constructive preferences"). The real dividing line for automation is not product standardization, but whether the **act of choosing** itself holds experiential value. For mundane purchases (e.g., printer paper), full AI delegation works. For experiential goods (e.g., wine, furniture), the joy of selection is core to consumption, so AI should act as an assistant that narrows options, leaving the final choice to humans. The "AI wallet" concept confuses three separate elements: decision-making, execution, and fund custody. Current payment industry solutions (e.g., from Stripe, Mastercard, Google, Visa) show that limited, scoped payment authorization tokens are sufficient for most consumer scenarios, not full fund custody. The true use case for autonomous AI wallets is in **B2B procurement** and **machine-to-machine (M2M) settlements** for standardized, high-frequency, low-value transactions. The real bottlenecks for AI shopping are not payment technology, but **1) the lack of trusted data sources** (e.g., fake reviews, counterfeit goods) and **2) the impossibility of automating human demand definition**. The conclusion is that the focus should be on safely automating the assessment and filtering process while reserving for humans the rights to define their criteria and enjoy the final act of choice. For experiential goods, the platform's competitive advantage shifts to providing a superior selection experience.

Foresight News1h ago

Why Is AI Agent Shopping Hard to Popularize?

Foresight News1h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片