The ruling arrived as Commodity Futures Trading Commission records showed a continuing stream of sports-related event contracts, including football totals, spreads, first-quarter outcomes and player-related markets. Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League have also established information-sharing agreements with the CFTC focused on sports integrity.

What the Ninth Circuit decided

On August 28, 2026, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to let Kalshi resume trading in Nevada during the litigation. The panel said Kalshi had not made a persuasive showing that federal commodities law preempts Nevada’s gambling regulations for its sports-event contracts. The panel indicated that federal law likely does not prevent Nevada from applying its gambling rules to those contracts while the dispute continues.

The decision concerns interim relief, not a final nationwide ruling on prediction markets. The panel also sent the question of Kalshi’s election contracts back to a lower court for further consideration.

Nevada’s attorney general’s office argued that sports betting does not become a different regulated activity simply because a company labels the product an “event contract.” That is the state’s legal position, not a final finding resolving the broader federal-versus-state dispute.

The ruling could make eventual Supreme Court review more likely. The Associated Press reported that roughly 20 states are involved in litigation over prediction-market platforms and noted that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier reached a different result in a New Jersey case involving Kalshi.

What the CFTC filings show

The CFTC registry lists sports products certified in August, but certification does not prove that every contract was actively traded or broadly available to consumers.

On August 27, the registry listed contracts tied to college-football spreads, first-quarter scoring, team performance and player-related results. Examples included a first-quarter spread contract for Stanford’s game against Hawaii and a first-quarter total-points contract for Oklahoma’s game at Michigan.

On August 28, the registry listed NFL total-points contracts, including one asking whether the New England Patriots-Seattle Seahawks game scheduled for September 9, 2026, would finish above 44.5 points. It also listed a first-quarter total for the Dallas Cowboys-New York Giants game scheduled for September 13.

Those filings illustrate why the legal dispute matters beyond a single platform. A product can be certified within a federal market system while still facing a state challenge over whether it is effectively sports betting.

Why leagues are working directly with the CFTC

The CFTC and MLB announced a memorandum of understanding on March 19, 2026. The agreement creates a framework to discuss, cooperate and exchange information about the integrity of professional baseball and related prediction markets. The CFTC said the arrangement is intended to help the parties respond more quickly to incidents and anticipate emerging risks.

The CFTC and NHL announced a similar memorandum on May 21. The agreement calls for regular communication, confidential information sharing and coordination concerning the integrity of professional hockey and related event contracts offered on CFTC-regulated exchanges.

Neither memorandum is an enforcement action, and neither guarantees that manipulation, insider trading or fraud will be prevented. They are cooperation agreements intended to create direct channels between sports leagues and the federal regulator. The CFTC says those channels are meant to help protect market participants from fraud, manipulation and other abuses.

What consumers should watch

As of August 29, 2026, Kalshi sports and election-event trading remains blocked in Nevada while the case proceeds. Consumers should check the rules and availability in their own state rather than assume that a federally registered event contract is accessible nationwide.

The next developments to watch include further Ninth Circuit proceedings, Nevada’s enforcement posture, possible review by the full appeals court or Supreme Court, and additional CFTC filings or information-sharing agreements with sports leagues.

Sources

• Associated Press: Ninth Circuit ruling in Nevada-Kalshi dispute
• CFTC: Designated Contract Market Products registry