---
type: source
title: "Federal judge blocks Arizona criminal charges against Kalshi at CFTC's request"
author: "CoinDesk"
url: https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2026/04/10/federal-judge-blocks-arizona-from-bringing-criminal-charges-against-kalshi
date: 2026-04-10
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: processed
processed_by: rio
processed_date: 2026-04-12
priority: high
tags: [prediction-markets, regulatory, kalshi, arizona, preemption, cftc, criminal-charges]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

District Judge Michael Liburdi (District of Arizona) issued a Temporary Restraining Order on April 10, 2026, blocking Arizona from arraigning Kalshi as scheduled on April 13. The TRO was granted at the CFTC's request.

Key finding by the court: "The CFTC has made a clear showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that Arizona's gambling laws are preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act." The court found that Arizona proceeding with a state action might violate the Supremacy Clause.

Background: Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes filed 20 criminal charges against Kalshi on March 17, accusing it of operating an illegal gambling business and unlawfully allowing people to place bets on elections. This was the first-ever criminal prosecution of a prediction market platform.

The TRO lasts two weeks while the federal preemption arguments are further developed.

Important context: This conflicts slightly with a Washington Times report from April 9 ("Judge rejects bid to stop Arizona's prosecution of Kalshi on wagering charges") — this appears to be a different court (Arizona state court) rejecting Kalshi's state-level motion to dismiss, separate from the federal district court TRO. Two parallel proceedings.

The CFTC under Chair Michael Selig requested the TRO — the executive branch directly intervening to block a state criminal prosecution. This is more aggressive than mere amicus brief filing.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** The federal district court found that federal preemption is "likely to succeed on the merits" — this goes further than the 3rd Circuit's "reasonable likelihood" standard for a preliminary injunction. If this language holds through merits proceedings, it becomes the strongest judicial statement yet on federal preemption. The executive branch is now actively blocking state criminal prosecutions, not just defending against civil suits.

**What surprised me:** The conflict between the April 9 Washington Times report (Arizona state judge denies Kalshi) and the April 10 CoinDesk report (federal judge grants TRO for CFTC). Two parallel legal proceedings — Kalshi fighting in both federal and state court simultaneously, with opposite results on the same day.

**What I expected but didn't find:** The district court's merits analysis on WHY CFTC's preemption argument is likely to succeed — just the conclusion, not the reasoning chain. The full TRO opinion would be the most valuable source here.

**KB connections:**
- `cftc-licensed-dcm-preemption-protects-centralized-prediction-markets-but-not-decentralized-governance-markets` — direct confirmation
- `decentralized-mechanism-design-creates-regulatory-defensibility-not-evasion` — relevant

**Extraction hints:** Primary claim: executive branch use of TRO to block state criminal prosecution of CFTC-regulated platform sets a new precedent for federal preemption enforcement. Secondary claim: parallel federal/state proceedings with opposite outcomes in same jurisdiction on same day reflects the jurisdictional chaos at the heart of the prediction market regulatory battle.

**Context:** This is 5 days before the 9th Circuit oral argument and 10 days after the 3rd Circuit preliminary injunction. The Trump administration is using every legal mechanism simultaneously.

## Curator Notes

PRIMARY CONNECTION: `cftc-licensed-dcm-preemption-protects-centralized-prediction-markets-but-not-decentralized-governance-markets`
WHY ARCHIVED: First federal district court finding that federal preemption is "likely to succeed on the merits" — goes beyond appellate preliminary injunction standard; marks executive branch actively blocking state criminal proceedings
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the "likely to succeed on merits" language — this is a stronger preemption finding than the 3rd Circuit's preliminary injunction standard; also the parallel proceedings conflict is worth noting as evidence of jurisdictional chaos
