Kalshi Unable to Stop Ohio From Enforcing Sports Gambling Laws

Kalshi failed to convince the Sixth Circuit to bar Ohio officials from taking regulatory action against the online prediction market platform while its appeal is pending.

The three-judge panel, however, ordered the company’s challenge to a preliminary injunction denial to be fast-tracked.

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit judges said April 24 that while the issues in the case are “close,” Kalshi didn’t show enough for the panel to immediately bar Ohio officials from enforcing state law against unlicensed sports-gambling operations.

The ruling is another in a set of lawsuits waged against states by prediction markets as they argue the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission is the only agency that has power over them. Courts across the US have ruled differently on whether the federal Commodity Exchange Act overrides state laws to regulate so-called “event contracts,” the panel noted in its unsigned order.

“This split of authorities leaves no doubt that Kalshi has raised serious questions on the merits,” the panel wrote. “At least at this stage, though, we find the preemption arguments largely in equipoise (if not favoring Ohio).”

But even if they assumed federal law covers event contracts, the appeals judges said Kalshi’s arguments aren’t enough to prove that federal law overrides Ohio’s in this instance. Other factors also don’t weigh in Kalshi’s favor, they said.

A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump said in March Kalshi is unlikely to win in its lawsuit against the state.

The appeals panel’s ruling came less than two weeks after the Ohio Casino Control Commission told Kalshi it seeks to impose a $5 million fine against the platform for operating an unlicensed sports-betting platform in the state.

Senior Judge Alice M. Batchelder, Judge Eric E. Murphy, and Judge Kevin G. Ritz sat on the panel.

Kalshi is represented by Milbank LLP and Flannery | Georgalis LLC. Ohio defendants are represented by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office and Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP.

The case is KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, 6th Cir., No. 26-3196, 4/24/26.