#kalshi与内华达州的监管权争议

Kalshi Lawsuit in Nevada: The Crossroads of Prediction Market Regulation

Whether Kalshi can win depends on whether the boundaries between federal and state regulation can be clearly defined. Currently, this case is no longer just about the compliance of a single platform but is set to reshape the legal landscape of prediction markets in the United States.

From existing judicial trends, Kalshi has achieved favorable rulings in some federal courts. For example, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the U.S. ruled that New Jersey has no authority to regulate Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts, recognizing such products as under the “exclusive jurisdiction” of the CFTC and classified as “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act. This precedent provides strong legal support for Kalshi.

However, Nevada’s stance is highly symbolic. As a core state of the U.S. gambling industry, its regulatory agency insists that Kalshi’s contracts are essentially “gambling” and should be subject to state gambling laws. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held oral arguments but has not yet issued a substantive ruling, meaning the dispute remains unresolved.

It is worth noting that the CFTC’s regulatory endorsement is Kalshi’s most crucial defense. Since being approved as a “Designated Contract Market” (DCM) in 2022, Kalshi’s operations have always been based on a federal regulatory framework, and its product design emphasizes the characteristics of financial derivatives rather than gambling. If the court recognizes its “event contracts” as fitting the “swap” definition, federal law will take precedence over state law.

But the challenges are equally formidable:

Multiple states (such as Massachusetts and Arizona) have enacted bans or criminal prosecutions to restrict Kalshi’s operations, forming a “multi-point encirclement”;

Federal courts in Arizona have cited the “Anti-Injunction Act” to refuse to interfere with state criminal proceedings, demonstrating respect for state enforcement authority;

Public skepticism about whether prediction markets are a form of disguised gambling persists, especially when contracts involve sensitive topics like elections and disasters.

Overall, Kalshi has a legal basis for victory, but the political and regulatory realities are complex. If the Ninth Circuit ultimately supports its federal jurisdiction claim, the case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court for a final decision. As experts say, “This will be a moment when Congress or the Supreme Court must step in.”