States whose laws or officials are at issue, not courthouse locations or the reach of a ruling.
Tile counts apply before the state filter.
Court levels come from the recorded venue. A petition, remand or parallel appeal may be in a different court.
Counts apply before the court filter.
Editorial order: foundational national decisions, pending national review and distinct circuit precedent first; then state or tribal issues and additional appellate disputes; then overlapping, narrower or concluded disputes. Within each group, distinct legal questions take priority over companion cases. Importance is potential legal reach, not odds of success.
Historical significance differs from current practical importance. Use “Ongoing / unresolved records” to focus on live issues in the inventory. Recorded dismissals remain separate; an appeal dismissal may leave the trial ruling in place. These groups describe the source record, not a freshly verified live docket.
Reviewed Oct 12, 2026. Each case explains its rank and potential reach. Unverified prospects are left unassessed.
36 records · ranked by assessed importance
No cases match. Change the filters or reset to show all records.
Broad significance
Editorial assessment
PASPA's invalidation changed sports-betting law nationwide; the constitutional issue is decided, with no pending step identified in this case.
Broad significance
Editorial assessment
Sports-contract preemption could receive nationwide review; the Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case.
Broad significance
Editorial assessment
Sports-contract preemption sets important circuit precedent against Kalshi's preliminary relief; election-contract issues remain on remand.
Broad significance
Editorial assessment
Sports-contract preemption adds circuit precedent favoring state enforcement at the preliminary stage; further trial proceedings were ordered.
Broad significance
Editorial assessment
Sports contracts on tribal lands raise a distinct IGRA issue; the circuit favors the tribes' preliminary merits showing, with relief still unresolved.
Broad significance
Editorial assessment
The Wire Act's sports-only reading is significant circuit precedent for online gambling; the reviewed appeal is decided, with no further step identified.
Broad significance
Editorial assessment
The Ohio companion appeal limits preliminary sports-contract relief in Tennessee; it shares the circuit ruling, and remand leaves further proceedings.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Florida's tribal compact presents a distinct online-betting issue; Supreme Court review was denied, leaving no further step identified in this petition.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
State licensing and federal preemption reach Massachusetts's highest court; statewide stakes are substantial, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Utah's preemption dispute follows a recorded trial judgment and appeal; potential circuit significance is substantial, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Federal authority over Wisconsin enforcement is contested; preliminary relief was denied without ending the suit, and appellate prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Maryland's sports-contract appeal could add another circuit's view on preemption; its outcome and timing remain unassessed.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Iowa's injunction appeal could add Eighth Circuit precedent on sports contracts; the scope matters, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Federal preemption meets Kentucky's prediction-market tax and enforcement powers; the tax issue adds significance, while prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Tribes challenge event contracts under their gaming protections; potential tribal-land effects are distinct, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Arizona's criminal gambling charges create direct prosecution risk; a recorded halt is not dismissal, and prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Michigan enforcement combines state injunctions with a federal remand appeal; statewide consequences matter, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Washington challenges sports and other event contracts; the broader product scope matters statewide, while appellate prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Federal preemption intersects Arizona's criminal enforcement; the linked proceedings have statewide stakes, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
A new Minnesota law tests federal preemption before enforcement; statewide legislative stakes are clear, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Oregon consumers seek gambling-loss recovery; private liability could extend beyond regulators, but class-wide impact and prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Connecticut combines licensing and consumer-protection claims; statewide remedies could matter beyond preemption, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
New York seeks licensing enforcement and financial remedies; statewide exposure is substantial, but the allegations and prospects remain unresolved.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Underdog challenges enforcement in six states; the grouped suits broaden operator coverage, but no common outcome or prospects are assessed.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
Illinois repeats the federal-state preemption dispute; a recorded preliminary order has state-level effects, but prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
The CFTC's Arizona suit overlaps the operator's case and criminal dispute; its separate federal relief matters locally, with prospects unassessed.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
The CFTC contests New York's enforcement authority; it repeats the broader preemption question, with state-level reach and prospects unassessed.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
New Mexico alleges unlicensed betting outside its gaming framework; state-level enforcement overlaps related suits, and prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
Kentucky alleges unlicensed gambling; this state enforcement case overlaps the federal tax challenge, and prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
The CFTC challenges Connecticut enforcement on preemption grounds; its state-level issues largely overlap other cases, and prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
The CFTC challenges New Mexico enforcement; it overlaps the state's and tribes' disputes, with separate relief and prospects unassessed.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
Wisconsin alleges unlicensed gambling against several platforms; state enforcement overlaps the ranked federal appeal, and prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
Rhode Island challenges Kalshi and Polymarket sports contracts; state-level issues overlap the wider dispute, and prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
The CFTC contests Rhode Island enforcement alongside existing litigation; its overlapping state-level reach is narrower, with prospects unassessed.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
Election-contract litigation is important background, but the recorded appeal dismissal limits its forward role; current prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
Montana's challenge ended in a recorded mixed-prejudice dismissal; limited precedential value follows, while future claims and prospects are unassessed.
The inventory includes prediction-market disputes and selected sports-betting, online-gambling and tribal cases; it is not complete. One record groups several Underdog suits. A blank map tile means no matching record, not no litigation; records without a state-at-issue field, including Murphy and the federal election-contract dispute, are not plotted.
Source retrieval dates and last recorded activity are not guarantees of a current docket. Status verification dates are not recorded in the source schema. Editorial assessments are dated separately. Month-only dates retain their precision; events within such a month may not be in exact chronological order.
Agency letters, proposed penalties and administrative settlements are listed under Agency actions. A court case may mention them as background without counting them as separate lawsuits.
Broad significance
Editorial assessment
PASPA's invalidation changed sports-betting law nationwide; the constitutional issue is decided, with no pending step identified in this case.
Broad significance. A foundational Supreme Court decision has greater settled legal reach than unresolved state-specific disputes.
Potential reach: National constitutional precedent; individual states still decide whether and how to authorize sports betting.
Prospects: The constitutional ruling is decided. The reviewed opinion supports no forecast of further proceedings in this case.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
16-476
The Supreme Court struck down PASPA's ban on states authorizing sports betting as unconstitutional commandeering of state legislatures under the Tenth Amendment, and held the statute's remaining provisions were not severable from the invalid part, so the entire law fell. The 6-3 decision (Alito, J.) opened the door for states to legalize and regulate sports betting themselves, which New Jersey and dozens of other states have since done.
The Supreme Court invalidated PASPA. The decision did not itself authorize betting in every state; the Atlas record has no state-at-issue field, so it is not plotted on the state map.
Status in Atlas: decided. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Supreme Court merits judgment
Supreme Court strikes down PASPA, 6-3.
Broad significance
Editorial assessment
Sports-contract preemption could receive nationwide review; the Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case.
Broad significance. A petition offers a route to resolving conflicting circuit approaches to federal preemption.
Potential reach: Potential national effect if the Supreme Court grants review and decides the issue; the existing ruling concerns preliminary relief in New Jersey.
Prospects: The petition is pending on the reviewed docket. Whether review will be granted, and how the Court would rule, remain uncertain.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
D.N.J. 1:25-cv-02152; 3d Cir. 25-1922
Kalshi sued to block New Jersey's Division of Gaming Enforcement from enforcing a cease-and-desist against its sports-event contracts and won a preliminary injunction, which the Third Circuit affirmed 2-1 on the ground that the Commodity Exchange Act likely preempts state gambling law for contracts traded on a CFTC-registered exchange. New Jersey has petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, citing a circuit split with the Ninth and Sixth Circuits; the petition is pending with heavy amicus activity as of October 2026.
The record lists the Third Circuit; the certiorari petition is at the U.S. Supreme Court. Review has been requested, not granted.
Status in Atlas: cert_pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Recorded event
Ohio and 38 other states plus the District of Columbia, and other amici including the NFL and 145 tribes, file briefs urging the Court to grant certiorari.
Recorded event
The Clerk extends Kalshi's response deadline on the cert petition to November 9, 2026.
Certiorari petition
New Jersey officials' petition for a writ of certiorari is docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court as No. 26-299, Flaherty v. KalshiEX, LLC, from 3d Cir. No. 25-1922.
Interlocutory appeal
Third Circuit affirms the preliminary injunction 2-1, holding the CEA likely preempts New Jersey gambling law as applied to sports-event contracts traded on a designated contract market; decided only the preliminary-injunction standard, not the merits.
Trial motion
D.N.J. (Judge Edward S. Kiel) grants Kalshi a preliminary injunction barring New Jersey DGE enforcement against its sports-related event contracts.
Broad significance
Editorial assessment
Sports-contract preemption sets important circuit precedent against Kalshi's preliminary relief; election-contract issues remain on remand.
Broad significance. The Ninth Circuit's reasoning differs from the Third Circuit and separates sports contracts from election-contract claims.
Potential reach: Circuit precedent on federal preemption; the reviewed injunction concerns Nevada. The related Supreme Court petition is Robinhood's separate proceeding.
Prospects: The reviewed opinion is adverse to Kalshi on preliminary sports relief. Final disposition, rehearing and mandate status are not established by that opinion; no final-outcome forecast is made.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
D. Nev. 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW; 9th Cir. 25-7516
Kalshi won an early preliminary injunction against Nevada gaming regulators, which the district court dissolved in November 2025 after finding the record had developed since the "accelerated" early ruling. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dissolution as to sports-event contracts, holding they are not CFTC-regulated "swaps" and so Nevada's gambling law is not preempted, but remanded Kalshi's election-contract claims for the district court to decide. Kalshi has sought en banc rehearing, and a co-litigant (Robinhood) has separately petitioned the Supreme Court over the same ruling.
The sports ruling and election-contract remand have different scopes. Robinhood's Supreme Court petition is a separate case, not Kalshi's petition.
Status in Atlas: decided. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Related proceeding · certiorari petition
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC — a co-litigant in the parallel Nevada dispute — petitions the Supreme Court over the same Ninth Circuit ruling, docketed as No. 26-338.
Rehearing request
Kalshi petitions the Ninth Circuit for en banc rehearing of the panel's ruling.
Interlocutory appeal · partial remand
Ninth Circuit affirms dissolution of the injunction as to sports-event contracts, holding they are not "swaps" under 7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(A)(ii) and the CEA does not preempt Nevada gaming law for them; remands the election-contracts question to the district court.
Trial motion
Judge Gordon dissolves the preliminary injunction, finding the law and facts had evolved since the early, "accelerated" ruling.
Trial motion
D. Nev. (Judge Andrew P. Gordon) grants Kalshi a preliminary injunction against Nevada Gaming Control Board enforcement.
Broad significance
Editorial assessment
Sports-contract preemption adds circuit precedent favoring state enforcement at the preliminary stage; further trial proceedings were ordered.
Broad significance. The joint Sixth Circuit opinion adds another circuit's reasoning to the federal-state conflict.
Potential reach: Circuit precedent; Ohio's denial of preliminary relief is affirmed, with remand. It is not a nationwide enforcement order.
Prospects: Kalshi failed the likelihood-of-success test in the reviewed opinion. That preliminary assessment is not a final trial judgment; later proceedings were not verified.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
S.D. Ohio 2:25-cv-01165; 6th Cir. 26-3196
After the Ohio Casino Control Commission issued a cease-and-desist and the district court denied Kalshi a preliminary injunction, the Sixth Circuit — in one opinion resolving both this case and the parallel Tennessee appeal — ruled on September 25, 2026 that Kalshi's sports-event contracts are not CEA "swaps" and that, even if they were, Ohio's gambling law would not be preempted. This widened the circuit split against the Third Circuit's contrary ruling for Kalshi in the New Jersey case.
A preliminary-injunction appeal was decided and remand ordered. The recorded status does not mean the trial case has ended.
Status in Atlas: decided. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11 – 2026-10-12.
Interlocutory appeal · remand
Sixth Circuit (Judge Julia Smith Gibbons) decides Nos. 26-3196 and 26-5235 together, holding sports-event contracts are not CEA swaps and, regardless, state gambling law is not preempted; affirms denial of Kalshi's requested preliminary injunction against Ohio enforcement; remands for further proceedings.
Interlocutory appeal
Sixth Circuit hears merits oral argument (consolidated with the Tennessee appeal).
Appellate motion
Sixth Circuit motions panel denies an injunction pending appeal but expedites the appeal.
Recorded event
Kalshi sues OCCC and Ohio AG Dave Yost in federal court seeking to block enforcement, after the Commission's March 2025 cease-and-desist and an October 2025 compliance letter.
Broad significance
Editorial assessment
Sports contracts on tribal lands raise a distinct IGRA issue; the circuit favors the tribes' preliminary merits showing, with relief still unresolved.
Broad significance. Tribal gaming rights are a distinct route to limiting event contracts beyond state-law preemption.
Potential reach: Circuit precedent concerning gaming on tribal lands; not a general ban on contracts everywhere in California or nationwide.
Prospects: The court found the tribes likely to succeed under IGRA but left other injunction factors to the trial court. The advertising claim has a separate adverse disposition; final relief is not assured.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
N.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-06162; 9th Cir. 25-7504
Three California tribes sued Kalshi and Robinhood alleging their sports-event contracts enable unauthorized Class III gambling reaching tribal lands, in violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and other law. The district court denied a preliminary injunction in late 2025; on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed in part on September 16, 2026, finding the tribes likely to succeed on their Class III claim, and remanded for the district court to weigh the remaining injunction factors.
The IGRA claim was remanded for remaining injunction factors; the advertising claim has a separate disposition.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Interlocutory appeal · partial remand
Ninth Circuit reverses in part, holding the tribes are likely to succeed on their claim that Kalshi's sports contracts are unauthorized Class III gaming when accessed from tribal lands, but affirms that Kalshi's ad-legality statement is nonactionable opinion; remands for the district court to weigh the remaining injunction factors.
Trial motion
The district court denies the tribes' motion for a preliminary injunction.
Recorded event
The tribes file a complaint against Kalshi and Robinhood in the Northern District of California.
Broad significance
Editorial assessment
The Wire Act's sports-only reading is significant circuit precedent for online gambling; the reviewed appeal is decided, with no further step identified.
Broad significance. A distinct federal statutory interpretation affects the legal framework beyond sports-contract disputes.
Potential reach: First Circuit precedent and declaratory relief for the plaintiffs; the opinion does not establish a nationwide injunction.
Prospects: The reviewed appeal affirmed summary judgment but vacated APA relief. No current pending step is established by the opinion.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
19-1835
The New Hampshire Lottery Commission and its vendors sued DOJ to block the 2018 OLC opinion reinterpreting the Wire Act to cover all forms of interstate gambling, not just sports. The First Circuit affirmed a declaratory judgment that the Wire Act's prohibitions are limited to bets or wagers on sporting events or contests, reinstating the narrower 2011 reading nationwide and protecting state online lottery sales, multi-state online poker compacts, and similar interstate gambling-adjacent data transmissions from Wire Act exposure.
The recorded summary describes a nationwide effect. The reviewed opinion is more precise: First Circuit precedent and declaratory relief, with APA relief vacated; it is not a nationwide injunction.
Status in Atlas: decided. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Merits appeal · partial vacatur
First Circuit affirms that the Wire Act's prohibitions are limited to sports betting.
Broad significance
Editorial assessment
The Ohio companion appeal limits preliminary sports-contract relief in Tennessee; it shares the circuit ruling, and remand leaves further proceedings.
Broad significance. Important circuit reasoning, but no independent circuit split beyond the joint Ohio opinion.
Potential reach: Tennessee injunction vacated; circuit reasoning may affect other cases. This is not a final judgment resolving all claims.
Prospects: The reviewed opinion rejects Kalshi's preliminary merits showing. The ultimate disposition and later orders remain unverified.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
M.D. Tenn. 3:26-cv-00034; 6th Cir. 26-5235
Kalshi sued Tennessee's Sports Wagering Council after a cease-and-desist order and won a preliminary injunction from Judge Aleta Trauger. The Sixth Circuit, deciding this appeal together with the parallel Ohio case, ruled for Tennessee on September 25, 2026, vacating the injunction and holding Kalshi's sports contracts are not CEA swaps and are not exempt from state regulation even if they were.
The preliminary injunction was vacated and remand ordered. This does not resolve every trial claim.
Status in Atlas: decided. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11 – 2026-10-12.
Interlocutory appeal · remand
Sixth Circuit vacates the Tennessee injunction and remands, holding the sports-event contracts are not swaps and state law is not preempted regardless.
Trial motion
Judge Aleta Trauger grants Kalshi a preliminary injunction blocking Sports Wagering Council enforcement.
Recorded event
Kalshi sues Tennessee Sports Wagering Council officials and AG Skrmetti in M.D. Tenn. after a cease-and-desist order.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Florida's tribal compact presents a distinct online-betting issue; Supreme Court review was denied, leaving no further step identified in this petition.
State / issue significance. The compact and tribal gaming issue has substantial Florida importance, but a certiorari denial adds no Supreme Court merits precedent.
Potential reach: The Florida compact dispute; denial of review is not nationwide Supreme Court approval of comparable arrangements.
Prospects: Certiorari was denied in 2024. The reviewed docket supplies no basis to forecast new proceedings in this petition or outcomes in other challenges.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
21-5265 (D.C. Cir.); cert. denied, No. 23-862
Commercial (non-tribal) casino operators challenged the Interior Department's approval by inaction of Florida's 2021 compact with the Seminole Tribe, which — combined with a state law treating online wagers as placed where the receiving server sits — let the Tribe offer online sports betting statewide. The D.C. Circuit reversed a district court ruling against the compact, holding on June 30, 2023 that a compact may address the "allocation of criminal and civil jurisdiction between states and tribes with respect to enforcing those laws" and that routing off-reservation bets to on-reservation servers was a permissible jurisdictional allocation under IGRA rather than independent authority for off-reservation gaming. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 17, 2024, leaving the Seminole Tribe's statewide mobile sports-betting monopoly in place.
The Supreme Court denied review of the D.C. Circuit judgment. A certiorari denial is not a Supreme Court decision on the compact's merits.
Status in Atlas: decided. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Certiorari denied
Supreme Court denies the casino operators' petition for certiorari; Justice Kavanaugh would have granted it.
Merits appeal
D.C. Circuit reverses the district court and upholds the Seminole Tribe compact's online sports-betting structure under IGRA.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
State licensing and federal preemption reach Massachusetts's highest court; statewide stakes are substantial, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance. A state high-court dispute provides a distinct forum for the federal-state conflict.
Potential reach: Massachusetts enforcement and a potentially influential state-court interpretation; no national effect assumed.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Suffolk Super. Ct.; SJC-13906
Massachusetts AG Andrea Campbell sued Kalshi in Suffolk Superior Court over unlicensed sports wagering and won a preliminary injunction in January 2026, but a single Appeals Court justice stayed it pending appeal, letting Kalshi keep operating. The Supreme Judicial Court heard argument in May 2026 and had not ruled as of October 2026.
Status in Atlas: on_appeal. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Interlocutory appeal
SJC hears oral argument on whether the CEA preempts Massachusetts's sports-wagering law as applied to Kalshi.
Stay pending appeal
A single Appeals Court justice stays the injunction pending appeal, allowing Kalshi to resume offering sports contracts in Massachusetts.
Trial motions
Suffolk Superior Court (Judge Christopher K. Barry-Smith) grants the Commonwealth's preliminary injunction against Kalshi and denies Kalshi's motion to dismiss.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Utah's preemption dispute follows a recorded trial judgment and appeal; potential circuit significance is substantial, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance. A trial merits disposition differs from the many preliminary-injunction appeals.
Potential reach: Utah enforcement, with possible Tenth Circuit precedent if a merits appellate ruling is issued.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
D. Utah 2:26-cv-00151; 10th Cir. 26-4100
Kalshi preemptively sued Governor Cox, the Attorney General and other officials to block anticipated enforcement as Utah advanced HB 243, which added "proposition bet" to the statutory definition of gambling. Judge Robert J. Shelby granted summary judgment for Utah on August 4, 2026, holding the CEA does not preempt Utah's enforcement; Kalshi appealed, and the Tenth Circuit denied an emergency injunction pending appeal on September 8, 2026.
The record describes trial summary judgment and closure, followed by appellate proceedings. Appellate interim relief is a separate question.
Status in Atlas: on_appeal. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Appellate motion
Tenth Circuit denies Kalshi's emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal, allowing Utah to enforce its gambling laws against Kalshi.
Final trial disposition
Judge Robert J. Shelby grants Utah's motion for summary judgment, holding the CEA does not preempt Utah's enforcement of its anti-gambling laws against Kalshi, denies Kalshi's preliminary-injunction motion as moot, and closes the case.
Legislation
Governor Cox signs HB 243 ("Gambling Revisions"), adding "proposition bet" to the statutory definition of gambling, effective May 6, 2026.
Recorded event
Kalshi sues Governor Cox and other Utah officials seeking a declaratory judgment that the CEA preempts enforcement of Utah's gambling laws against its contracts.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Federal authority over Wisconsin enforcement is contested; preliminary relief was denied without ending the suit, and appellate prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance. Tests the CFTC's own power to challenge state enforcement, separately from an operator's suit.
Potential reach: Wisconsin enforcement; a possible Seventh Circuit decision could have wider precedential significance.
Prospects: The trial court found the CFTC had not met the preliminary-relief standard but denied the state's dismissal motion. A current appellate record was not verified, so appellate prospects are unassessed.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
E.D. Wis. 2:26-cv-00749-WCG; 7th Cir. 26-2675
Days after Wisconsin's own enforcement suits against five prediction-market and crypto platforms, the CFTC sued the state seeking to enjoin enforcement of its gambling statutes against CFTC-regulated contracts. On July 28, 2026, Judge William C. Griesbach denied the CFTC's preliminary-injunction motion, Wisconsin's motion to dismiss, and motions to intervene by Kalshi and others, finding the CFTC had not shown a likelihood of success on its swaps-preemption theory. The CFTC and Kalshi have appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
Status in Atlas: on_appeal. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Interlocutory appeal
Appeal docketed at the Seventh Circuit, with KalshiEX LLC as an appellant; appellant's brief due September 23, 2026.
Trial motions
Judge William C. Griesbach denies the CFTC's motion for a preliminary injunction, Wisconsin's motion to dismiss and venue-transfer motion, and all motions to intervene.
Recorded event
CFTC and the United States sue Wisconsin, Governor Evers and AG Kaul, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the state's anti-gambling statutes against CFTC-regulated designated contract markets.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Maryland's sports-contract appeal could add another circuit's view on preemption; its outcome and timing remain unassessed.
State / issue significance. An additional circuit may develop the conflict beyond the already published opinions.
Potential reach: Maryland enforcement, with potential Fourth Circuit precedent; a reported enforcement pause is not treated as a merits result.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
D. Md. 1:25-cv-01283; 4th Cir. 25-1892
Judge Adam B. Abelson denied Kalshi a preliminary injunction against Maryland's cease-and-desist enforcement, finding Kalshi unlikely to show CEA preemption. Kalshi appealed; Maryland agreed in writing not to enforce while the appeal is pending. The Fourth Circuit heard argument in May 2026 with the panel reportedly skeptical of Kalshi, but had not ruled as of October 2026, and no party has sought certiorari in this case.
Status in Atlas: on_appeal. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Interlocutory appeal
Fourth Circuit hears oral argument on Kalshi's appeal; the panel is reported as skeptical of Kalshi's preemption theory.
Trial motion
Judge Adam B. Abelson denies Kalshi's preliminary-injunction motion, finding it has not shown a strong likelihood that federal law preempts Maryland's gambling law.
Recorded event
Kalshi sues Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission officials in D. Md.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Iowa's injunction appeal could add Eighth Circuit precedent on sports contracts; the scope matters, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance. Another circuit's review could clarify or deepen the disagreement on federal preemption.
Potential reach: Iowa preliminary relief and potential Eighth Circuit precedent; not a final trial determination.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
S.D./S.D. Iowa 4:26-cv-00109-SHL-HCA; 8th Cir. 26-2874
Kalshi sued Iowa AG Brenna Bird and the Racing and Gaming Commission seeking a ruling that federal law preempts Iowa gambling law for its event contracts. Judge Stephen Locher denied Kalshi's preliminary-injunction motion, holding sports-event contracts are not "swaps" under the Commodity Exchange Act; Kalshi has appealed to the Eighth Circuit, with briefing due into November 2026.
Status in Atlas: on_appeal. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Appeal docketed
Eighth Circuit dockets the appeal as No. 26-2874; appellant's brief due November 6, 2026.
Interlocutory appeal
Kalshi files a notice of appeal.
Trial motion
District court denies Kalshi's preliminary-injunction motion, holding sports-event contracts are not CEA "swaps."
Recorded event
Kalshi sues AG Brenna Bird and Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on preemption grounds.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Federal preemption meets Kentucky's prediction-market tax and enforcement powers; the tax issue adds significance, while prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance. The excise-tax issue distinguishes this case from repeated licensing challenges.
Potential reach: Kentucky's tax and enforcement measures; broader tax implications are possible, not established.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
The CFTC and DOJ sued Kentucky over its new prediction-market excise tax and event-contract restrictions, naming Governor Andy Beshear, AG Russell Coleman and the Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation, arguing the measures intrude on the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction over federally regulated swaps markets. Filed six days after Kentucky's own state-court suits against Kalshi, Polymarket and VGW.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Recorded event
CFTC files suit against Kentucky seeking to block state enforcement and the new excise tax on prediction markets.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Tribes challenge event contracts under their gaming protections; potential tribal-land effects are distinct, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance. Tribal rights and compact protections raise issues beyond a state's ordinary licensing rules.
Potential reach: The plaintiff tribes' claims in New Mexico; no nationwide or statewide injunction inferred.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
1:26-cv-01517
Four New Mexico tribal nations sued Kalshi in federal court, alleging its sports-event contracts enable unlicensed, under-21 sports gambling that violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and undermines their tribal gaming compacts. A preliminary-injunction motion was fully briefed by September 2026 with no ruling yet.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Trial motion briefing
Plaintiffs file notice that briefing is complete on their motion for a preliminary injunction; no ruling had issued as of October 2026.
Recorded event
The tribes file a complaint against Kalshi in the District of New Mexico.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Arizona's criminal gambling charges create direct prosecution risk; a recorded halt is not dismissal, and prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance. Criminal exposure distinguishes this proceeding from civil licensing disputes.
Potential reach: The Arizona defendants and prosecution; the reported halt arises from separate federal civil relief.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
Arizona AG Kris Mayes filed a 20-count misdemeanor criminal case against KalshiEX LLC and Kalshi Trading LLC in Maricopa County Superior Court, alleging illegal unlicensed wagering including on elections — the first criminal case filed by any state against a prediction-market operator. The related federal preliminary injunction in Kalshi's civil suit against Arizona has effectively halted the prosecution; no trial or dismissal was reported as of October 2026.
The recorded halt follows relief in a separate federal civil suit. It is not an acquittal or dismissal of the charges.
Status in Atlas: stayed. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Halt from separate civil relief
The federal preliminary injunction issued in Kalshi's civil suit against Arizona effectively halts continued prosecution of the criminal case.
Criminal complaint
Arizona AG Kris Mayes files a 20-count criminal case against KalshiEX LLC and Kalshi Trading LLC in Maricopa County Superior Court, alleging unlicensed gambling and illegal election wagering.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Michigan enforcement combines state injunctions with a federal remand appeal; statewide consequences matter, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance. Parallel state and federal proceedings raise a distinct forum and remand issue.
Potential reach: Michigan operations and the separate remand appeal; an appellate briefing pause does not stop every proceeding.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
Michigan AG Dana Nessel sued Kalshi in Ingham County Circuit Court alleging violation of the state's Lawful Sports Betting Act. After removal and remand, the court granted a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction requiring geofencing and barring Michigan-targeted advertising, with a $500,000-per-day penalty for noncompliance; Kalshi's related federal appeal over the remand is held in abeyance pending the Sixth Circuit's Ohio/Tennessee rulings.
State injunction proceedings coexist with a federal remand appeal. Abeyance of appellate briefing does not resolve the state case.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Trial motion
Ingham County Circuit Court grants a preliminary injunction requiring geofencing and barring Michigan-targeted advertising, with a $500,000-per-day penalty for violations.
Briefing in abeyance
Sixth Circuit grants Kalshi's motion to hold briefing in abeyance pending resolution of the related KalshiEX v. Schuler and KalshiEX v. Orgel appeals.
Remand appeal
Kalshi appeals the federal remand order to the Sixth Circuit (No. 26-1639).
Remand · trial relief
Western District of Michigan grants the AG's motion to remand to state court; Ingham County Circuit Court grants a temporary restraining order halting Kalshi's Michigan sports-wagering operations.
Recorded event
AG Nessel files suit against Kalshi alleging violation of Michigan's Lawful Sports Betting Act.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Washington challenges sports and other event contracts; the broader product scope matters statewide, while appellate prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance. The range of challenged contracts extends beyond the sports-only disputes.
Potential reach: Washington residents and covered products; the recorded final injunction order is not assumed to resolve all merits issues.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
AG Nick Brown sued Kalshi in King County Superior Court, alleging violations of the Washington Gambling Act and Consumer Protection Act over sports, election and other event contracts. The court granted a preliminary injunction and then a final order in August 2026 requiring Kalshi to stop offering and advertising covered wagers to Washington residents, with geofencing deadlines; the Washington Court of Appeals denied Kalshi's request to stay the injunction pending appeal.
The source calls an injunction order final, but that wording alone does not establish a final judgment on every claim. A denied stay does not pause the order.
Status in Atlas: on_appeal. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Injunction order
King County Superior Court issues a final order barring Kalshi from offering or advertising covered wagers to Washington residents, with geofencing deadlines of August 19 and September 2, 2026.
Stay denied
The Washington Court of Appeals denies Kalshi's request to stay the injunction pending appeal.
Preliminary injunction
King County Superior Court grants a preliminary injunction, finding Kalshi likely violated state law and that Washington consumers would suffer substantial injury absent relief.
Recorded event
AG Nick Brown sues Kalshi, alleging its event contracts on sports, elections, Supreme Court cases and other outcomes violate state gambling and consumer-protection law.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Federal preemption intersects Arizona's criminal enforcement; the linked proceedings have statewide stakes, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance. Federal civil relief affects a distinct state criminal proceeding.
Potential reach: Arizona enforcement; the recorded district-court venue coexists with a reported Ninth Circuit motion.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
2:26-cv-01715-MTL
After Arizona's Department of Gaming issued a cease-and-desist, Kalshi preemptively sued AG Kris Mayes and gaming officials. A federal judge initially declined to block Arizona's parallel criminal prosecution as premature, then on May 5, 2026 granted Kalshi a preliminary injunction holding the CEA preempts Arizona's gambling law for CFTC-regulated contracts. Arizona has since asked the Ninth Circuit to vacate that injunction in light of the Ninth Circuit's contrary Nevada ruling; the motion was pending as of October 2026.
The venue field lists D. Ariz.; the history separately records a Ninth Circuit motion. The state criminal proceeding is another case.
Status in Atlas: on_appeal. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Appellate motion
Arizona moves in the Ninth Circuit to vacate the Arizona injunction as to sports-event contracts, citing the Ninth Circuit's Nevada ruling; motion pending.
Trial motion
The same judge reverses course and grants Kalshi a preliminary injunction holding federal law preempts Arizona's gambling law for CFTC-regulated contracts.
Trial motion
Federal judge denies Kalshi's request to enjoin state enforcement and orders Kalshi to show cause why the court should not abstain given the pending state criminal case.
Recorded event
Kalshi sues AG Kris Mayes and Arizona Department of Gaming officials in federal court, seeking to block enforcement on CFTC-preemption grounds.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
A new Minnesota law tests federal preemption before enforcement; statewide legislative stakes are clear, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance. A challenge to legislation differs from challenges to individual cease-and-desist letters.
Potential reach: Minnesota's law and enforcement; a preliminary injunction is not a final merits ruling.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
The CFTC and DOJ sued Minnesota one day after Governor Walz signed a law making it a felony to operate or promote a prediction-market platform, arguing the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts traded on its designated contract markets. A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law before its August 1, 2026 effective date; Kalshi and Polymarket pursued related suits over the same law.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Trial motion
Judge Katherine Menendez grants a preliminary injunction, finding the law likely at least partially preempted by the CEA.
Recorded event
CFTC and DOJ sue Minnesota to block the new state law before it takes effect August 1, 2026, seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Oregon consumers seek gambling-loss recovery; private liability could extend beyond regulators, but class-wide impact and prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance. Loss-recovery claims offer a distinct private-enforcement route.
Potential reach: The asserted Oregon consumer claims; class certification, recovery and broader exposure are not assumed.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
3:26-cv-00336
A proposed class action alleges Kalshi's sports "event contracts" are in substance illegal sports bets under Oregon's gambling-loss-recovery statute and Unlawful Trade Practices Act, since Oregon permits online sports wagering only through the state lottery. No class has been certified and no ruling had issued as of October 2026.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Recorded event
Complaint filed in the District of Oregon alleging Kalshi's event contracts are unlicensed sports betting under Oregon's loss-recovery and unfair-trade-practices statutes.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Connecticut combines licensing and consumer-protection claims; statewide remedies could matter beyond preemption, but prospects are unassessed.
State / issue significance. The complaint adds consumer-protection allegations and requested monetary remedies.
Potential reach: Connecticut conduct and the relief sought; allegations are not findings or awarded damages.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
Connecticut's Gaming Division issued a cease-and-desist to Kalshi, Robinhood and Crypto.com in December 2025; a federal judge denied Kalshi's bid to enjoin enforcement in August 2026. Connecticut then sued Kalshi directly, seeking an injunction, disgorgement, restitution and civil penalties over unlicensed sports wagering and alleged marketing to minors; the case was removed to federal court the same day it was filed.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Complaint · removal
Connecticut (AG Tong, DCP Commissioner Cafferelli, Gov. Lamont) sues Kalshi, seeking an injunction, disgorgement, restitution and civil penalties; the complaint is removed to federal court the same day.
Trial motion
A federal judge denies Kalshi's motion for a preliminary injunction against Connecticut's enforcement.
Agency enforcement
Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection Gaming Division orders Kalshi, Robinhood and Crypto.com to cease and desist unlicensed online sports wagering.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
New York seeks licensing enforcement and financial remedies; statewide exposure is substantial, but the allegations and prospects remain unresolved.
State / issue significance. The requested remedies add significance beyond a narrow request to halt operations.
Potential reach: New York conduct and requested restitution or penalties; no award is inferred.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
Governor Hochul and AG James announced New York sued KalshiEX LLC for running an unlicensed, illegal gambling operation that lets users under 21 wager on uncertain outcomes, seeking an injunction, forfeiture and treble-damages fines. The CFTC separately sued the same day to block New York's enforcement; neither case had been decided as of October 2026.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Recorded event
New York sues KalshiEX LLC in state Supreme Court, alleging an unlicensed, illegal gambling operation and seeking an injunction, forfeiture of illegal gains, restitution and fines equal to three times Kalshi's gains.
State / issue significance
Editorial assessment
Underdog challenges enforcement in six states; the grouped suits broaden operator coverage, but no common outcome or prospects are assessed.
State / issue significance. A different operator and several states expand coverage, while repeating the central preemption question.
Potential reach: Six named state disputes grouped in one Atlas record, not one consolidated suit; exact venues are unspecified.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
After surrendering its daily-fantasy licenses in seven states to protect its CFTC-regulated prediction-market business, Underdog preemptively sued five states (Massachusetts, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Washington) on September 8, 2026, and Connecticut about a week later, seeking declarations and permanent injunctions that state gambling-law enforcement against its event contracts violates the Supremacy Clause. No rulings had been reported as of October 2026.
One Atlas record groups suits in six states. Exact venues and dockets are unspecified; this is not a single consolidated case.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Recorded event
Underdog files a similar suit against Connecticut, asking the court to block AG Tong and the Department of Consumer Protection from exercising state authority over its event contracts.
Recorded event
Underdog files federal suits against Massachusetts, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Washington, seeking permanent injunctions against state enforcement of gambling laws on its prediction-market business.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
Illinois repeats the federal-state preemption dispute; a recorded preliminary order has state-level effects, but prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance. Adds a federal trial-court position to an issue already ranked through circuit cases.
Potential reach: Illinois enforcement; no circuit-wide or nationwide relief is inferred.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
The CFTC sued Illinois — part of a trio of same-day suits against Illinois, Arizona and Connecticut — after Illinois sent cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Crypto.com and Polymarket, arguing state enforcement violates the agency's exclusive authority over federally regulated event contracts. On October 2, 2026, a federal judge reportedly granted the CFTC and Kalshi a preliminary injunction on their preemption theory.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Trial motion
A federal judge (reported as Judge Martha Pacold) grants preliminary injunctions to the CFTC and Kalshi against Illinois, finding sports-event contracts likely qualify as swaps and that Illinois law is likely preempted; parties were ordered to submit a proposed injunction by October 29.
Recorded event
CFTC sues Illinois, naming the governor, AG and gaming officials, days after Illinois cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Crypto.com and Polymarket.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
The CFTC's Arizona suit overlaps the operator's case and criminal dispute; its separate federal relief matters locally, with prospects unassessed.
Narrower significance. Overlapping factual and legal issues reduce its independent contribution to the ranking.
Potential reach: Arizona enforcement and the CFTC's requested relief; separate cases remain separate.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
The CFTC sued Arizona the same day it sued Illinois and Connecticut, then moved to enjoin Arizona's criminal and civil enforcement against Kalshi; a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order blocking the state's criminal prosecution around April 10, 2026. This suit has since proceeded alongside Kalshi's own consolidated federal case against Arizona.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Temporary restraining order
A federal judge grants a temporary restraining order blocking Arizona's criminal-enforcement proceedings against Kalshi.
Trial motion
CFTC moves to enjoin Arizona's criminal and civil enforcement against prediction markets.
Recorded event
CFTC sues Arizona, naming the governor and AG, alongside parallel suits against Illinois and Connecticut.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
The CFTC contests New York's enforcement authority; it repeats the broader preemption question, with state-level reach and prospects unassessed.
Narrower significance. An additional state-specific application of the same federal jurisdiction theory.
Potential reach: New York enforcement; no merits or nationwide ruling assumed.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
The CFTC and DOJ sued New York in Manhattan federal court after AG Letitia James sued Coinbase and Gemini, arguing the state's actions intrude on the CFTC's exclusive scheme for regulating commodity derivatives markets; the suit names Governor Hochul, AG James and the state's gaming commission.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Recorded event
CFTC and DOJ file a civil complaint in the Southern District of New York against the state and its leaders, seeking a declaration of exclusive federal authority over event contracts and an injunction against state enforcement.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
New Mexico alleges unlicensed betting outside its gaming framework; state-level enforcement overlaps related suits, and prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance. Important locally, with much of the legal ground covered by the tribal and federal companion disputes.
Potential reach: New Mexico's enforcement claims; not automatically the same relief as the tribes' separate suit.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
New Mexico AG Raúl Torrez sued Kalshi, alleging it runs an unlicensed sportsbook in violation of state law reserving sports wagering to tribal-state compacts, allows under-21 wagering, and pays no state gaming tax. The state described the suit as complementary to the separate tribal federal suit.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Recorded event
AG Torrez announces the lawsuit against Kalshi in First Judicial District Court, alleging an unlicensed sportsbook operating outside the tribal-compact/state-licensing framework.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
Kentucky alleges unlicensed gambling; this state enforcement case overlaps the federal tax challenge, and prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance. The separate CFTC case presents the more distinctive tax question in this inventory.
Potential reach: Kentucky's claims against the named operators; related suits are not assumed consolidated.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
Kentucky AG Russell Coleman sued Kalshi (naming Coinbase as an alleged fee-sharing affiliate), Polymarket (with Robinhood and Webull) and VGW Holdings in Franklin Circuit Court, alleging each operates an unlicensed sportsbook or sweepstakes casino in violation of state gambling and consumer-protection law.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Recorded event
AG Coleman files three suits (against Kalshi, Polymarket and VGW) in Franklin Circuit Court alleging unlicensed gambling.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
The CFTC challenges Connecticut enforcement on preemption grounds; its state-level issues largely overlap other cases, and prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance. Additional coverage of the recurring federal-state authority dispute.
Potential reach: Connecticut enforcement; it is distinct from the state's lawsuit against Kalshi.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
The CFTC sued Connecticut the same day it sued Illinois and Arizona, seeking to bar the state from applying its gambling law to CFTC-registered prediction-market exchanges.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Recorded event
CFTC sues Connecticut, naming the governor and AG, alongside parallel suits against Illinois and Arizona.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
The CFTC challenges New Mexico enforcement; it overlaps the state's and tribes' disputes, with separate relief and prospects unassessed.
Narrower significance. The tribal case supplies a more distinctive legal question; this suit repeats federal preemption.
Potential reach: New Mexico enforcement; no combined result with the tribal or state suits assumed.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
The CFTC sued New Mexico days after AG Torrez sued Kalshi in state court, naming Governor Lujan Grisham, AG Torrez and the state Gaming Control Board, and arguing the state cannot apply its gambling laws to federally regulated prediction-market platforms.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Recorded event
CFTC files suit in the District of New Mexico seeking to stop the state from applying its gambling laws to CFTC-regulated prediction markets.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
Wisconsin alleges unlicensed gambling against several platforms; state enforcement overlaps the ranked federal appeal, and prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance. The companion federal dispute more directly presents the appellate jurisdiction issue.
Potential reach: Wisconsin's enforcement claims against the named platforms; not the CFTC's separate case.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
Wisconsin AG Josh Kaul brought civil enforcement actions in Dane County Circuit Court against Coinbase, Kalshi, Robinhood, Polymarket and Crypto.com, alleging illegal commercial gambling under state law; the defendants removed the cases to federal court, where remand motions were reported pending as of mid-2026.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Recorded event
Wisconsin initiates civil enforcement actions in Dane County Circuit Court against Coinbase, Kalshi, Robinhood, Polymarket and Crypto.com under Wis. Stat. § 945.03.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
Rhode Island challenges Kalshi and Polymarket sports contracts; state-level issues overlap the wider dispute, and prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance. Adds local coverage without a separately verified precedential ruling.
Potential reach: Rhode Island enforcement; reported removal and consolidation do not establish a final outcome.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
AG Peter Neronha sued Kalshi and Polymarket (as QCX LLC) in Providence County Superior Court, arguing their sports-related event contracts are sports betting under state law; Kalshi had preemptively sued Neronha in federal court hours earlier. The case was removed to and consolidated in federal court, where preliminary-injunction motions were argued in August 2026 and remained undecided as of October 2026.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Recorded event
AG Neronha sues Kalshi and Polymarket in Providence County Superior Court, seeking a declaration that sports-related event contracts are sports betting under Rhode Island law and a permanent injunction.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
The CFTC contests Rhode Island enforcement alongside existing litigation; its overlapping state-level reach is narrower, with prospects unassessed.
Narrower significance. Much of the legal issue is represented by higher-ranked circuit and state disputes.
Potential reach: Rhode Island enforcement and the CFTC's participation; no independent national ruling inferred.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
Docket not recorded
The CFTC moved to block state enforcement in Rhode Island, intervening in Kalshi's existing federal suit against AG Neronha, arguing the state's enforcement against Kalshi and Polymarket is preempted by the CFTC's exclusive authority over designated contract markets.
Status in Atlas: pending. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Recorded event
CFTC sues to block state enforcement in Rhode Island, intervening in Kalshi's existing federal case against AG Neronha.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
Election-contract litigation is important background, but the recorded appeal dismissal limits its forward role; current prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance. Historically significant for election contracts, but less informative about unresolved sports-contract litigation after the appeal's recorded dismissal.
Potential reach: The challenged federal election-contract order; settlement of the appeal is not a sports-betting authorization.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
D.D.C. 1:23-cv-03257; D.C. Cir. 24-5205
Kalshi sued the CFTC after it blocked Kalshi's congressional-control election contracts. Judge Jia Cobb granted Kalshi summary judgment in September 2024, vacating the CFTC's order. The CFTC appealed to the D.C. Circuit but voluntarily dismissed that appeal in May 2025 under a negotiated settlement, leaving Cobb's ruling allowing the election contracts in effect — the first major federal ruling for Kalshi's "swap" theory.
The recorded dismissal concerns the CFTC's appeal, leaving the trial ruling in place. The negotiated settlement is not a new merits judgment.
Status in Atlas: dismissed. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Appeal dismissal
D.C. Circuit grants the voluntary dismissal, leaving Judge Cobb's 2024 ruling in effect.
Settlement · dismissal motion
CFTC files an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal under a negotiated settlement in which each side bears its own costs.
Stay dissolved / denied
D.C. Circuit dissolves the administrative stay and denies the CFTC's stay motion without prejudice.
Appeal · administrative stay
CFTC appeals to the D.C. Circuit (No. 24-5205); the court administratively stays Judge Cobb's order the same day.
Summary judgment
Judge Jia Cobb grants summary judgment for Kalshi and vacates the CFTC's September 2023 order blocking congressional-control election contracts.
Narrower significance
Editorial assessment
Montana's challenge ended in a recorded mixed-prejudice dismissal; limited precedential value follows, while future claims and prospects are unassessed.
Narrower significance. A stipulated dismissal provides less legal precedent than a reasoned appellate decision.
Potential reach: Different defendants have different dismissal terms; future litigation is neither predicted nor ruled out.
Prospects: No outcome forecast: a current primary court docket or decision was not independently verified for this case. The procedural history remains attributed to the Atlas sources.
Editorial review: 2026-10-12. Primary-source checks apply only to the documents identified here.
6:26-cv-00028-DWM
After Montana's Gambling Control Division twice warned that Kalshi's contracts were illegal gambling and threatened criminal charges, Kalshi sued in federal court. The parties voluntarily dismissed the case in September 2026 — with prejudice as to Gambling Control Commission members, without prejudice as to the Attorney General and the Division — as part of a non-enforcement arrangement tied to the outcome of the related Nevada case.
Dismissal terms differ by defendant: with prejudice for some and without prejudice for others. No merits settlement is inferred.
Status in Atlas: dismissed. Status verification date: not recorded. Source retrieval dates: 2026-10-11.
Mixed-prejudice dismissal
Parties file a joint stipulation of dismissal — with prejudice as to Gambling Control Commission members, without prejudice as to the Attorney General, an official and the Division.
Agency enforcement · complaint
Montana's Gambling Control Division sends a second cease-and-desist letter ruling Kalshi's event contracts illegal gambling and threatening criminal charges; Kalshi sues in federal court the same month.