Federal judge bars Kalshi from offering sports contracts on California tribal lands
Preliminary order of 4 Nov 2026 requires tribal boundary maps and rapid compliance reporting.
Key Takeaways
- Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted a preliminary injunction on 4 November 2026 barring Kalshi from offering sports contracts on the lands of the California tribes that sued.
- The injunction covers a specified list of sports and requires tribes to deliver boundary maps by 13 November 2026; Kalshi then has 21 days to report compliance steps to the court.
- A Ninth Circuit panel held in September 2026 that Kalshi’s sports contracts are likely class III gaming under IGRA and remanded the case to the district court to assess irreparable harm and equitable factors.
- Other courts reached different results: the Western District of Wisconsin denied a Ho‑Chunk Nation injunction in May 2026, while the Third Circuit ruled for CEA preemption in April 2026, producing a circuit split and a likely Supreme Court petition.
A federal judge in San Francisco stopped Kalshi Inc. from offering contracts on sporting events on the lands of California tribes that sued the prediction-market operator. The preliminary injunction was granted on 4 November 2026 by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District of California and requires the tribes to deliver maps of their territorial boundaries by 13 November 2026; Kalshi will then have 21 days to report to the court the steps it took to comply.
Scope of the order
The one-page order prohibits Kalshi from offering “any sports contracts” on the Indian lands of the plaintiffs in California. It covers contracts that “facially involve, relate to, or reference” a list of sports that includes: Baseball, Basketball, Boxing, Chess, eSports, Football, Golf, Hockey, Motorsports, Pickleball, Soccer, Tennis, Wrestling and Ultimate Fighting Championship.
The tribes must provide maps of their California land boundaries to Kalshi before 13 November 2026. Kalshi then has 21 days from delivery to report to the court the steps it took to comply with the order.
Judicial turn after Ninth Circuit referral
The order closes a change of course in the litigation. Judge Corley denied the tribes’ first preliminary-injunction request in November 2025, concluding the tribes were unlikely to win under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) or under the Lanham Act, and treating Kalshi’s contracts as products regulated by the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).
A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected that analysis in September 2026. Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote: “Kalshi may reshuffle the cards, but it cannot change the hand: Its sports event contracts are class III gaming.” The unanimous panel held that Blue Lake Rancheria and Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me‑Wuk Indians are likely to succeed in proving that Kalshi’s contracts violate IGRA and tribal gaming ordinances when users purchase them from tribal lands.
The panel also determined that the contracts are “located on Indian lands” when a user acquires them from tribal territory and that, even if the contracts were swaps, CFTC jurisdiction under the CEA would not displace IGRA. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to Judge Corley to evaluate irreparable harm, the balance of equities and the public interest. The panel did affirm dismissal of the false-advertising claim under the Lanham Act.
Comparison with Wisconsin and national posture
In May 2026, Judge William Conley of the Western District of Wisconsin denied the preliminary injunction sought by the Ho‑Chunk Nation against Kalshi and Robinhood. Conley accepted the core IGRA claims but found the tribe had not shown irreparable harm: it presented no evidence of reduced attendance or casino revenue and not a single customer who had migrated to Kalshi.
The California tribes did show irreparable harm and obtained the preliminary injunction. That leaves other tribes with a Ninth Circuit precedent on the merits and a district-court decision favorable on the residual factors.
Path to the Supreme Court
The litigation is part of a nationwide dispute over who regulates contracts on sporting events. On 28 August 2026 a Ninth Circuit panel held in a Nevada case that Kalshi’s sports contracts are likely not swaps protected by the CEA, allowing state regulators to apply gaming law.
That same panel denied rehearing en banc. Kalshi’s only remaining path is the Supreme Court of the United States. The Third Circuit issued a contrary decision in April 2026, concluding the CEA likely preempts New Jersey’s attempt to regulate Kalshi. New Jersey filed a petition to the Supreme Court on 2 September 2026; petitions by Robinhood and Crypto.com followed. The Supreme Court extended Kalshi’s response deadline to 7 December 2026.
A coalition of 130 federally recognized tribes and 15 tribal organizations filed an amicus urging the justices to accept New Jersey’s case. Additionally, attorneys general from 38 states and the District of Columbia, the NFL and the American Gaming Association submitted briefs supporting New Jersey.
“Kalshi may reshuffle the cards, but it cannot change the hand: Its sports event contracts are class III gaming,” wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown in the Ninth Circuit opinion, according to the record.
Case status and next steps
Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi remains with the district court to oversee immediate compliance with the preliminary injunction on California tribal lands and to consider the remaining equitable factors. Meanwhile, the circuit split and pending Supreme Court petitions keep national regulatory uncertainty alive.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly does the injunction prohibit Kalshi from doing in California?
The injunction bars Kalshi from offering “any sports contracts” on the Indian lands of the plaintiff tribes in California. It covers contracts that involve, relate to, or reference a specified list of sports including Baseball, Basketball, Boxing, Chess, eSports, Football, Golf, Hockey, Motorsports, Pickleball, Soccer, Tennis, Wrestling and Ultimate Fighting Championship.
What deadlines did the court set for compliance?
The tribes must provide maps of their tribal land boundaries in California to Kalshi by 13 November 2026. Kalshi then has 21 days from that delivery to report to the court the measures it took to comply with the injunction.
On what basis did the Ninth Circuit favor the tribes in September 2026?
The Ninth Circuit concluded the tribes are likely to succeed on the merits because Kalshi’s sports-event contracts are class III gaming under IGRA when purchased from Indian lands; it held the contracts are “located on Indian lands” if acquired from tribal territory and that CFTC jurisdiction under the CEA would not displace IGRA.
Have other federal courts ruled differently on Kalshi?
Yes. In May 2026 Judge William Conley in Wisconsin denied a Ho‑Chunk Nation preliminary injunction for lack of evidence of irreparable harm. The Third Circuit issued an opposite ruling in April 2026, finding the CEA likely preempts New Jersey’s regulation of Kalshi, creating a circuit split.
What is the national next step for Kalshi?
Kalshi’s remaining national avenue is to ask the Supreme Court of the United States to resolve the split between circuits. New Jersey and others have filed petitions; the Supreme Court extended Kalshi’s response deadline to 7 December 2026.
Tags
About the author
Renata Quiroga
Betting Markets Correspondent
Renata Quiroga covers sports betting and prediction markets — sportsbook launches, odds technology, event contracts, and the regulatory calls that decide what can be bet on and where. The reports open with the product or the ruling, name operators and platforms precisely, and explain the mechanics without needless jargon. When a book enters a Latin American market or a prediction exchange lists a contested contract, Renata Quiroga reports what changes for the bettor.
More from Renata Quiroga
