---
type: source
title: "9th Circuit Issues One-Page Decision Backing Nevada's Block of Kalshi Sports Contracts"
author: "The Nevada Independent"
url: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-moves-to-block-prediction-market-kalshi-after-9th-circuit-ruling-clears-way
date: 2026-02-17
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: processed
processed_by: rio
processed_date: 2026-04-23
priority: high
tags: [kalshi, prediction-markets, 9th-circuit, federal-preemption, nevada, sports-betting, regulatory]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

On February 17, 2026, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a one-page decision backing the federal judge's November 2025 order requiring Kalshi to cease offering sports contracts in Nevada. The ruling was not on the merits — it was an affirmation of the preliminary injunction.

**Immediate aftermath:** Nevada's Gaming Control Board filed a civil enforcement action in Carson City District Court the same day to permanently block Kalshi from the state.

**Next moves per gaming attorney Daniel Wallach:** Kalshi could request the U.S. Supreme Court for an administrative order to maintain operations during ongoing proceedings.

**CFTC counterweight:** The Trump administration's CFTC simultaneously filed amicus briefs supporting Kalshi's position, complicating the regulatory landscape (two federal entities effectively on opposing sides of the same dispute).

**Distinction from April merits hearing:** This February ruling addressed only whether the preliminary injunction should remain in place while the case proceeds. The full merits hearing at the 9th Circuit occurred April 16, 2026, with a ruling still pending as of April 20.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** The February preliminary ruling established that Nevada's enforcement authority was real and immediately actionable — this isn't a regulatory threat, it's active enforcement. The civil enforcement action filing the same day means Kalshi faces actual legal jeopardy in Nevada regardless of how the merits case resolves.

**What surprised me:** The CFTC and Nevada Gaming Control Board are effectively adversaries in the same federal ecosystem — one Trump administration agency (CFTC) filing to support a company while Nevada's state courts are actively blocking it. This multi-axis conflict is more chaotic than I anticipated.

**What I expected but didn't find:** A clear federal-state hierarchy that would preempt state enforcement during pending federal proceedings. The fact that Nevada's civil action proceeds in parallel with the merits case suggests no automatic preemption.

**KB connections:**
- Relates to existing claims about CFTC preemption as a protection mechanism for DCM-registered platforms
- The CFTC-Nevada conflict may complicate existing Belief #6 claims about "decentralized mechanism design creates regulatory defensibility" — if CFTC support isn't enough to stop state enforcement, the defensibility claim needs scope qualification

**Extraction hints:**
- Claim candidate: "CFTC designation does not automatically preempt state enforcement actions during pending federal proceedings"
- The civil enforcement filing (permanent block attempt) is a new escalation level — different from the earlier criminal prosecution attempts in Arizona

**Context:** This ruling preceded the April 16 merits hearing where the panel appeared to lean Nevada's way. The preliminary ruling and the subsequent merits hearing are two separate proceedings — extractor should not conflate them.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: Existing claims about CFTC preemption protecting prediction market operators from state enforcement
WHY ARCHIVED: The February 17 one-page ruling established active Nevada enforcement as a live threat. Nevada's civil action in Carson City is now parallel to the federal proceedings.
EXTRACTION HINT: Distinguish this preliminary ruling from the pending April merits case. The key claim is about CFTC designation failing to automatically preempt state civil enforcement during pending proceedings.
