Ninth Circuit finds California tribes likely to win claims over Kalshi sports contracts
- Sources
- 2
- Claims verified
- 0 of 5
What happened
On September 16, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi, No. 25-7504, a case brought by two California tribes, Blue Lake Rancheria and Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, against Kalshi, Robinhood Markets and their affiliated entities. The panel reversed in part a district court order that had denied the tribes a preliminary injunction. It held that the tribes were likely to succeed on claims that Kalshi's sports event contracts, entered into from tribal land, are class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and were not authorized by the tribes' gaming ordinances. Courthouse News described the opinion as unanimous.
The panel held that neither the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act nor the Commodity Exchange Act displaced the tribes' claim under the gaming act. It affirmed the district court on a separate Lanham Act claim over Kalshi's "Sports Betting: Legal in all 50 States" advertisement, treating it as a lay opinion about legality. The case was sent back to the district court to weigh the remaining preliminary injunction factors, so this ruling did not itself grant an injunction.
Key points
- On September 16, 2026 the Ninth Circuit reversed in part the denial of a preliminary injunction sought by two California tribes.12
- The panel held the tribes likely to succeed on claims that Kalshi's sports event contracts are class III gaming on tribal land.12
- Defendants in the case include Kalshi, Robinhood Markets and their affiliated entities.1
- The panel affirmed the rejection of a Lanham Act claim over the "Legal in all 50 States" advertisement, treating it as a lay opinion.12
- The case was remanded for the remaining preliminary injunction factors; no injunction was granted by this ruling.12
Why it matters
An appeals court found Kalshi's sports event contracts likely to be class III gaming on tribal land, which adds legal exposure to the product at the center of the case.
Robinhood Markets and its affiliated entities were named as defendants alongside Kalshi, so the case reaches a second company in the same market.
The injunction itself was sent back to the district court, so the ruling sets a legal finding on likelihood of success but not yet a court order.
In context
| Round | Date | Post-money valuation | Raised | Led by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Series D | May 10, 2018 | $5.6B | $363M | DST Global |
| Series E | Jul 22, 2019 | $7.6B | $323M | DST Global |
| Series F | May 4, 2020 | $8.3B | $280M | Sequoia Capital |
| Series F extension | Jul 13, 2020 | $8.6B | $320M | Unknown |
| Series G | Aug 17, 2020 | $11B | $200M | D1 Capital Partners |
| Series G extension | Sep 22, 2020 | $12B | $460M | Unknown |
Updated
Fact-check
- The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi, No. 25-7504, on September 16, 2026.Not read by the checker: both source pages returned HTTP 403. Rests on the writer's read: [1] Justia (Ninth Circuit opinion): the opinion lists docket 25-7504 and is dated September 16, 2026; [2] Courthouse News carries the same date.Partly verified
- The panel reversed in part the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding the tribes likely to succeed on their Indian Gaming Regulatory Act claims.Not read by the checker: both source pages returned HTTP 403. Rests on the writer's read: [1] Justia (Ninth Circuit opinion): the panel reversed the denial in part and held Kalshi's sports contracts were class III gaming on Indian lands, unauthorized by the tribes' ordinances. [2] Courthouse News reports the same finding.Partly verified
- The Lanham Act claim over Kalshi's advertisement was rejected as a lay opinion about legality.Not read by the checker: both source pages returned HTTP 403. Rests on the writer's read: [1] Justia (Ninth Circuit opinion): the panel affirmed that a lay opinion on legality cannot support the claim. [2] Courthouse News says the same.Partly verified
- The case was remanded for the remaining preliminary injunction factors.Not read by the checker: both source pages returned HTTP 403. Rests on the writer's read: [1] Justia (Ninth Circuit opinion): the panel remanded with instructions to reach the remaining factors; [2] Courthouse News says the trial judge must reconsider the motion.Partly verified
- The opinion was written by Judge McKeown and was unanimous.Not read by the checker: both source pages returned HTTP 403. Rests on the writer's read: [1] Justia (Ninth Circuit opinion): opinion by Judge McKeown for a three-judge panel; [2] Courthouse News calls it unanimous.Partly verified
Sources
- [1]Justia (Ninth Circuit opinion) (opens in a new tab)Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi, Inc., No. 25-7504 (9th Cir. 2026)We reverse the denial of the preliminary injunction because the Tribes are likely to succeed in their claims
- [2]Courthouse News Service (opens in a new tab)Ninth Circuit deals blow to Kalshi on tribal landKalshi may reshuffle the cards, but it cannot change the hand: Its sports event contracts are class III gaming.
