Ninth Circuit Rejects Kalshi Rehearing, Opening Next Route to Supreme Court

Kalshi will not get another hearing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals over its effort to block Nevada gambling regulators.

The appeals court on Wednesday denied the exchange’s requests for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, leaving intact an Aug. 28 decision upholding the dissolution of an injunction that had protected Kalshi from Nevada enforcement.

“The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc,” the order states. The original three-judge panel unanimously rejected the rehearing petitions.

The denial moves Kalshi closer to a possible Supreme Court petition. It does not mean the justices will hear the case, and it does not turn the earlier preliminary injunction ruling into a final judgment resolving the underlying lawsuit.

Nevada ruling remains in place

The Ninth Circuit’s August decision found that Kalshi had not established that the Commodity Exchange Act likely prevents Nevada from applying its gaming laws to the exchange’s sports event contracts. It affirmed the dissolution of preliminary protection against state enforcement.

Kalshi argues that its contracts fall under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) exclusive jurisdiction. Nevada maintains that federal registration does not exempt the products from state gambling requirements.

Wednesday’s order does not provide a new substantive analysis of that dispute. It declines to reopen the panel decision.

That distinction also limits the geographic implications. The August opinion is precedent for federal courts within the Ninth Circuit, which includes California and eight other states. But denying rehearing does not automatically impose a new platform ban across all nine states or decide every state’s individual enforcement case.

Supreme Court clock starts

Kalshi generally has 90 days from the rehearing denial to petition the Supreme Court, placing the deadline at February 2, 2027, unless an extension is granted. It could file sooner.

Gaming attorney Daniel Wallach highlighted the denial Wednesday, noting that no judge requested an en banc vote and that Kalshi could seek to coordinate its Supreme Court timing with the pending New Jersey dispute.

🚨 BREAKING: The Ninth Circuit has denied Kalshi’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. No judge requested a vote on en banc review.

Kalshi now has 90 days to seek SCOTUS review, but Paul Clement may try to align the timing with the pending Third Circuit case. pic.twitter.com/4gqVkVsdQG

— Daniel Wallach (@WALLACHLEGAL) November 4, 2026

New Jersey is already asking the justices to review the Third Circuit’s pro-Kalshi ruling. The conflicting appellate outcomes provide the backdrop for requests that the Supreme Court settle the federal-versus-state jurisdictional question.

Another setback after the Second Circuit order

The Ninth Circuit denial follows a separate setback Tuesday in the Second Circuit.

That court declined to grant injunctions pending appeal in Kalshi’s New York and Connecticut cases and Coinbase’s Connecticut case. Those appeals remain pending, and the brief order did not resolve the underlying preemption question.

The two developments should not be conflated. The Second Circuit refused interim protection while appeals proceed. The Ninth Circuit refused to reconsider an appellate decision already issued against Kalshi.

Together, they leave the company without the additional judicial protection it sought in multiple enforcement fights. The next potential step in Nevada is a petition to the Supreme Court, not a guaranteed hearing or an automatic stay of state action.