Ninth Circuit Rejects Tribal Request as Kalshi Seeks Stay in Washington Prediction Market Case
The Ninth Circuit rejected California tribes’ request to align their appeal with a Nevada-related prediction market case. Meanwhile, Kalshi moved to pause Washington’s lawsuit pending appeal.
West Coast prediction market litigation split into two separate procedural tracks late last week as the Ninth Circuit rejected a request from California tribes to align their appeal against Kalshi and Robinhood with a closely watched Nevada case. At the same time, Kalshi moved to stay Washington’s lawsuit pending appeal after a federal judge remanded the case back to the state court.
Ninth Circuit Rejects California Tribes’ Panel Request
Three California tribes — Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, and Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians — had asked the Ninth Circuit to assign their appeal against Kalshi and Robinhood to the same panel handling the closely watched consolidated Nevada case.
The tribes argued the cases involve “substantially overlapping legal questions concerning the regulation of event-based contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act.”
The tribes argued that assigning both matters to the same panel would avoid duplicative review of complex Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) issues that had already been argued in the Nevada case.
However, the filing also emphasized that the California case raises separate issues involving “tribal sovereignty and regulatory authority.”
The tribes told the court:
Assignment of this appeal to the same panel would promote judicial economy, conserve judicial resources, and facilitate efficient resolution of related legal issues.”
Still, the Ninth Circuit denied the request on May 6, citing North American Derivatives Exchange’s (Crypto.com) lawsuit.
In a brief order, the court said:
Due to significant differences between this appeal and North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. State of Nevada … the motion to reassign this appeal to the panel that heard argument in that appeal … is DENIED.”
The tribes sued Kalshi and Robinood in July 2025. They alleged the companies are operating illegal sports betting on tribal lands, violating the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and threatening tribal sovereignty.
In November 2025, a federal judge sided with the prediction market operators, ruling that the CEA governs event contracts, not tribal or state law. The judge ruled that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) governs Kalshi’s online operations instead of IGRA.
Kalshi Moves to Pause Washington Case Pending Appeal
Meanwhile, Kalshi filed a motion seeking to stay a Washington federal court order remanding the state’s lawsuit back to state court.
Kalshi had removed the complaint to federal court. It claimed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts.
On May 5, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour rejected the company’s removal arguments and concluded that the case does not belong in federal court because gambling regulation falls within state oversight.
Kalshi has appealed the decision, seeking a stay pending appeal. Alternatively, it’s asking for an interim stay while it seeks a stay in the Ninth Circuit.
Kalshi warned that allowing the state-court proceedings to continue could lead to “conflicting federal and state court decisions” across jurisdictions. It repeatedly cited recent favorable rulings in Arizona and the Third Circuit.
At one point, Kalshi argued that parallel proceedings risk creating “judicial chaos.”
The company additionally warned of a “rat’s nest of comity and federalism issues” if state proceedings advance while federal appeals remain unresolved.
Gambling Insider delivers the latest industry news, in-depth features, and operator reviews that you can trust. Our team combines rigorous editorial standards with decades of specialized expertise to ensure accuracy and fairness. We are committed to delivering clear, impartial, and dependable coverage across the global gambling sector.
