---
type: source
title: "9th Circuit consolidates Kalshi, Robinhood, Crypto.com oral arguments for April 16"
author: "MCAI Lex Vision"
url: https://www.mindcast-ai.com/p/kalshi-9th-circuit-apr-16
date: 2026-04-12
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: processed
processed_by: rio
processed_date: 2026-04-12
priority: high
tags: [prediction-markets, kalshi, 9th-circuit, oral-argument, nevada, preemption, robinhood, crypto-com]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has consolidated oral arguments from three cases (Nevada Gaming Control Board v. Kalshi, Nevada v. Robinhood Derivatives, Nevada v. Crypto.com) for a single hearing in San Francisco on April 16, 2026.

Three-judge panel composition: Judges Ryan D. Nelson, Bridget S. Bade, and Kenneth K. Lee — all appointed by President Donald Trump.

Key legal context:
- Nevada already obtained a TRO against Kalshi at the district level — Kalshi is currently BLOCKED from operating in Nevada while the 9th Circuit deliberates
- The 9th Circuit denied Kalshi's emergency stay request prior to the April 16 argument (meaning Kalshi has already lost the preliminary battle in this circuit)
- This contrasts with the 3rd Circuit, where Kalshi won the preliminary injunction against New Jersey

The cases center on whether the CEA preempts Nevada's gaming law definitions of "sports pool" and "percentage game," which Nevada's courts found applicable to Kalshi's contracts.

Separately, a "CDC Gaming" source mentions "Nevada moves to block Kalshi after 9th Circuit ruling clears way" — this appears to reference the district court TRO against Kalshi being upheld rather than a full 9th Circuit merits ruling. The 9th Circuit has not yet issued a ruling as of April 12, 2026.

MCAI Lex Vision also flags a Rule 40.11 paradox in a separate article: the 3rd Circuit's "swaps" classification could create a class action exposure for Kalshi that the 9th Circuit cannot ignore.

Expected timeline for 9th Circuit ruling: 60-120 days post-argument (June - August 2026).

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** The 9th Circuit is operating in the OPPOSITE procedural posture from the 3rd Circuit — here Kalshi has already LOST the stay request and is blocked in Nevada. The all-Trump panel may suggest pro-preemption sympathies, but the 9th Circuit as a whole leans liberal, and a panel ruling can be reheard en banc. If the 9th Circuit rules against preemption (even with a Trump panel), it creates a formal circuit split that forces SCOTUS cert.

**What surprised me:** The consolidation of three cases (Kalshi, Robinhood, Crypto.com) into one argument. This means the April 16 hearing is effectively a prediction market industry oral argument, not just a Kalshi case. The breadth of the ruling will cover all three platforms' Nevada operations simultaneously.

**What I expected but didn't find:** The specific legal arguments distinguishing Kalshi's case from Robinhood's or Crypto.com's — whether the platforms are using different legal theories or whether the consolidated argument treats them identically.

**KB connections:**
- `cftc-licensed-dcm-preemption-protects-centralized-prediction-markets-but-not-decentralized-governance-markets`
- `prediction-market-scotus-cert-likely-by-early-2027` — the 9th Circuit outcome is the critical path variable for this claim

**Extraction hints:** Primary claim: 9th Circuit April 16 consolidated hearing on prediction market preemption involves all-Trump panel but Nevada has already won TRO — the procedural asymmetry from 3rd Circuit creates the conditions for a formal circuit split regardless of panel composition. Expected ruling timeline: June-August 2026. SCOTUS cert likely to follow if circuits diverge.

**Context:** MCAI Lex Vision appears to be a legal analysis publication focused on prediction market regulation. Source is pre-argument (April 12 archive date = today), so no ruling has issued yet.

## Curator Notes

PRIMARY CONNECTION: `cftc-licensed-dcm-preemption-protects-centralized-prediction-markets-but-not-decentralized-governance-markets`
WHY ARCHIVED: Pre-argument analysis of the 9th Circuit consolidated hearing; documents the procedural asymmetry (Kalshi already blocked in Nevada, unlike the 3rd Circuit where Kalshi won); establishes timeline expectations for SCOTUS cert path
EXTRACTION HINT: Treat as setup for future claims — the current value is the procedural context and timeline; the actual ruling will be the high-value archiving moment; note the SCOTUS cert path conditional on 9th Circuit anti-preemption ruling
