Kalshi has blocked access to its prediction markets on three California tribal reservations following a federal appeals court ruling that its sports contracts likely violate tribal gaming laws.
During a Thursday status hearing, Kalshi attorney Grant Mainland told a federal judge the company had implemented geofencing around the lands of three tribes suing the prediction market operator over CA sports betting. An attorney for the tribes argued the restrictions do not eliminate the irreparable harm underlying their lawsuit.
The move marks Kalshi’s first voluntary geofencing of tribal lands and comes just over a week after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revived the tribes’ bid for a preliminary injunction.
Kalshi responds to ninth circuit ruling
Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians and Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians sued Kalshi and Robinhood, alleging their sports contracts constitute unauthorized gambling on tribal lands.
On Sept. 16, the Ninth Circuit partially reversed a lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the tribes were likely to succeed on their claims under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
The appeals court determined that Kalshi’s sports contracts qualify as Class III gaming and that federal commodities law does not override the tribes’ authority to regulate gambling on their lands.
The ruling sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley to consider the remaining requirements for an injunction, including irreparable harm.
Prediction market legal fight continues
Kalshi’s voluntary restrictions address access to its platform on the three reservations, but the tribes maintain that the company has already interfered with their sovereignty and gaming rights.
The case adds to a growing multi-state legal dispute over whether federal regulation of prediction markets supersedes state and tribal gambling laws.
The Ninth Circuit separately ruled against Kalshi in its Nevada litigation in August, allowing state regulators to treat its sports contracts as gambling. That conflicts with an April Third Circuit ruling in Kalshi’s favor against New Jersey, which has since asked the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the dispute.
