Federal Appeals Court Says Kalshi Sports Contracts Amount to Gambling in Tribal Sovereignty Fight

Kalshi may call its products prediction contracts, but a federal appeals court has concluded that when customers put money on the outcome of a sporting event, the transaction looks much like an ordinary bet.

Read more NFL

That distinction is now central to a legal fight involving two California Indian tribes, a federally regulated prediction-market operator and a much broader dispute over who gets to control gambling on tribal lands.

In a unanimous decision Wednesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived a lawsuit brought by Blue Lake Rancheria in Humboldt County and Chicken Ranch Rancheria in Tuolumne County. The tribes contend that Kalshi has been conducting unauthorized gambling involving people on their reservations, intruding on gaming activity governed by tribal law.

The decision reverses U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of San Francisco, who had dismissed the case after concluding that prediction markets did not constitute gambling.

The Court Looks Past the Prediction-Market Label

The three-judge appellate panel took a sharply different view.

Judge M. Margaret McKeown, writing for the court, focused on what actually happens when a Kalshi customer buys a sports event contract. A person puts money at risk on an uncertain result and receives a payout if that result occurs. In the court’s analysis, calling the transaction a contract rather than a wager does not substantially change its underlying character.

McKeown illustrated the point with a hypothetical involving the San Francisco Giants. A customer could spend $100 on a Kalshi contract tied to whether the Giants win their next game. That same person, somewhere sports wagering is legal, could put $100 on the identical outcome through DraftKings.

The essential components would remain the same: the person placing the money, the amount at stake and the sporting event determining the payout. What changes is the language used to describe the transaction.

The panel also pointed to Kalshi’s own marketing. The tribes had challenged an advertisement promoting the platform as a way to engage in sports betting throughout all 50 states, a message that complicated the company’s effort to draw a firm distinction between its event contracts and conventional wagering.

Federal Regulation Meets Tribal Gaming Law

Kalshi operates under federal oversight from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Its regulatory status has allowed the company to offer event contracts in places where state law otherwise restricts sports gambling, including California.

That structure has opened a larger legal conflict. Kalshi operates within the federal commodities system, while states and tribal governments have traditionally exercised substantial authority over gambling within their respective jurisdictions.

For the California tribes, the dispute is more immediate.

Their gaming ordinances do not authorize Kalshi’s sports contracts, the appeals court found. The tribes argue that allowing an outside company to offer those products to people on their lands bypasses their authority to determine what gambling is permitted there and under what rules.

The appeals court did not immediately order Kalshi to stop selling the contracts on tribal lands. Instead, it returned the lawsuit to Corley while indicating that the evidence presented so far appears capable of supporting an injunction.

That leaves the district court to consider whether Kalshi can continue offering sports event contracts involving customers on the reservations while the litigation proceeds.

Tribes Say the Financial Effects Are Already Being Felt

Attorney Lester Marston, a tribal member representing the plaintiffs, characterized the appellate victory as protection of the tribes’ ability to make and enforce their own laws on their reservations.

He also tied the dispute directly to tribal finances. Marston maintains that money lost to Kalshi has reduced resources available for community programs, including preschool meals and some medical treatment for elders in need.

Read more Buffalo Bills

The lawsuit therefore reaches beyond a technical disagreement about how a financial contract should be classified. For the tribes, gambling revenue and control over gaming operations are intertwined with both governmental authority and the financing of services on their lands.

States Have Their Own Stake in the Fight

The case has attracted attention well beyond Blue Lake Rancheria and Chicken Ranch Rancheria.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined officials from 25 other states and the District of Columbia in a legal filing supporting the tribes. Their argument carries implications outside Indian gaming: if federal regulation allows Kalshi to offer products that function like sports wagers regardless of local gambling restrictions, state governments could see their own regulatory authority curtailed.

Marston has nevertheless criticized Bonta’s response inside California. He argues that the attorney general should have taken direct enforcement action against Kalshi under the state’s tribal gaming framework.

California voters approved a ballot measure in 2000 authorizing federally recognized tribes to conduct specified forms of gaming on tribal lands. Marston maintains that Kalshi’s activities conflict with the system established by that vote.

Bonta’s office had not responded to a request for comment at the time covered by the source material.

Kalshi and Robinhood Still Have Paths to Appeal

Kalshi’s attorneys likewise had not immediately commented on the appellate decision. The ruling is unlikely to be the final word.

The company can seek another hearing before a larger group of 9th Circuit judges and could ultimately petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the dispute.

Robinhood Markets, which distributes Kalshi products and is also a defendant in the case, disagreed with the appellate court’s decision and indicated it was considering its next steps. The company maintained that the contracts operate within the federal regulatory framework overseen by the CFTC and defended access to prediction markets as compliant with that system.

Marston expects the dispute eventually to reach the Supreme Court.

A Larger Test for the Prediction-Market Business

The case comes as prediction markets move deeper into territory traditionally occupied by sportsbooks. Contracts are no longer confined to elections or broad political outcomes. Customers can put money behind the results of games and increasingly specific sporting events and performances.

That expansion makes the legal distinction between a federally regulated event contract and an ordinary wager increasingly consequential.

The 9th Circuit’s decision does not settle every part of that debate, nor does it immediately shut down Kalshi’s sports products on tribal lands. But it rejects, at least at this stage of the California litigation, the idea that terminology alone separates the two.

For the appellate panel, the mechanics of the transaction carried more weight: money is placed at risk, a sporting outcome determines the result, and the customer either collects or loses depending on what happens.

Read more Symplify returns to profitability as revenue more than triples in two-year turnaround