---
type: source
title: "Fourth Circuit Panel Expresses Doubts About Kalshi's Request for Injunctive Relief Against Maryland"
author: "DeFiRate"
url: https://defirate.com/news/fourth-circuit-panel-expresses-doubts-about-kalshis-request-for-injunctive-relief-against-maryland
date: 2026-05-08
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: null-result
priority: high
tags: [prediction-markets, kalshi, fourth-circuit, cftc, event-contracts, regulatory, preemption, maryland]
intake_tier: research-task
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

DeFiRate coverage of the Fourth Circuit oral arguments (May 7-8, 2026) in KalshiEX LLC v. Martin, No. 25-1892.

Panel: Judges Stephanie Dawn Thacker, Roger Gregory, and one third panelist (later confirmed as DeAndrea Gist Benjamin).

Key findings from DeFiRate:
- Panel "seemed skeptical of Kalshi's arguments that its designated contract markets related to sporting events are subject to exclusive federal regulation"
- "oral arguments before the panel were anything but a slam dunk for Kalshi"
- "heavy skepticism of Kalshi's claims about sports event contracts being out of reach of state police powers"
- Judge Thacker questioned whether exclusive federal jurisdiction over DCMs would logically extend to all gambling, including state lotteries
- Judge Gregory stated "if it quacks...it's a duck, right? It's gambling, isn't it?"
- Panel pressed Maryland's AAG Max Brauer on whether DCMs truly fall outside the statutory definition of "swaps" under federal law

No mention of governance markets, DAOs, futarchy, or endogenous settlement.

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** DeFiRate's headline framing ("panel expresses doubts") is the more conservative read of the argument compared to InGame's "wary but may not be convinced they're illegal." Both articles cover the same argument but emphasize different aspects. DeFiRate emphasizes the skepticism; InGame emphasizes the nuance. Together they suggest a genuinely uncertain panel.

**What surprised me:** The fact that DeFiRate and InGame's coverage of the same argument reached different headline conclusions — one reading the panel as skeptical of Kalshi, the other reading them as sympathetic to field preemption. This is the "letter vs. spirit" tension the panel itself seemed to embody.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Either clear pro-state or pro-Kalshi signal. The panel is genuinely split in tone.

**KB connections:** Same as the InGame archive — [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition because TWAP settlement against internal token price is endogenous not an external observable event]].

**Extraction hints:** Use this alongside the InGame article to construct the claim: "Fourth Circuit panel expressed genuine ambivalence about Kalshi's sports event contracts, signaling neither a clear pro-state nor pro-Kalshi ruling." This is different from the Ninth Circuit (clearly skeptical of Kalshi) and sets up a potential circuit split outcome.

**Context:** DeFiRate is a crypto-native publication with less legal detail than InGame. The InGame article is the better source for specific quotes and judicial reasoning.

## Curator Notes
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition because TWAP settlement against internal token price is endogenous not an external observable event]]
WHY ARCHIVED: Complementary coverage of the Fourth Circuit argument. Use WITH the InGame archive for full picture.
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the divergence between DeFiRate and InGame coverage as evidence of genuine judicial ambiguity — this is itself a data point.
