Kalshi Loses Sixth Circuit Appeal in Ohio and Tennessee

Kalshi lost its combined Sixth Circuit appeals over Ohio and Tennessee sports-betting laws on September 25, 2026, after the federal appeals court affirmed Ohio’s denial of preliminary relief and vacated an injunction that had protected the company in Tennessee. The decision, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, remands the Tennessee case for further proceedings and removes Kalshi’s preliminary federal-court protection in both states.

Sixth Circuit overturns Tennessee relief and upholds Ohio denial

The appeals concerned Kalshi’s effort to stop Ohio and Tennessee from applying their sports-betting rules to its sports-event contracts. In Ohio, the Sixth Circuit left in place the lower court’s refusal to grant a preliminary injunction. In Tennessee, it set aside the preliminary injunction previously obtained by Kalshi.

Preliminary injunctions are temporary measures issued while litigation continues. The ruling does not end the underlying disputes, but it changes the parties’ positions while the cases proceed in the lower courts.

Court rejects swap-jurisdiction and preemption arguments

Kalshi had argued that its contracts fell within the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction because they qualified as swaps. The Sixth Circuit held that the company had not shown that its sports-event contracts met that standard.

The court also rejected Kalshi’s alternative argument that the Commodity Exchange Act overrides state gambling law. It held that the federal commodities statute neither expressly nor impliedly preempts the gambling laws of Ohio and Tennessee, allowing the states to enforce their sports-betting regulations against the company.

Those holdings address both central parts of Kalshi’s bid for preliminary relief: exclusive federal oversight through the CFTC and federal preemption of state restrictions.

Third, Sixth and Ninth Circuits diverge

The ruling adds to a growing divide among federal appeals courts over Kalshi’s challenge to state-level sports-betting regulation. The Third Circuit previously granted Kalshi preliminary relief, while the Ninth Circuit reached the opposite result in litigation involving Nevada, according to The Block.

A Fourth Circuit appeal remains pending, leaving another federal appellate court to weigh the legal status of Kalshi’s sports-event contracts and the reach of state gambling rules.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.