Ninth Circuit revives two California tribes' bid to block Kalshi's sports contracts

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on September 16, 2026 that two California tribes are likely to succeed in showing that Kalshi's sports-outcome event contracts amount to unauthorized gambling on their sovereign land. The unanimous three-judge panel, in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi Inc., No. 25-7504, reversed in part a November 2025 order by U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District of California, who had denied Blue Lake Rancheria and Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians a preliminary injunction against Kalshi and its retail partner Robinhood. Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote the opinion, joined by Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia and Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez, holding that the tribes are likely to prevail on their claim that Kalshi's contracts are unauthorized Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the tribes' own gaming ordinances.

How the case reached the appeals court

Blue Lake Rancheria, based in Humboldt County, and Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, based in Tuolumne County, sued Kalshi and Robinhood, arguing that Kalshi's sports-event contracts function as sports bets no matter what label the Commodity Futures Trading Commission applies to them, and that offering them on tribal land without the tribes' consent violates federal tribal gaming law. Judge Corley denied the tribes a preliminary injunction in November 2025. The Ninth Circuit's published opinion reverses that denial in part, but the panel did not itself impose an injunction. It sent the case back to the district court to weigh the remaining preliminary-injunction factors, which means Kalshi's contracts remain available on the two tribes' land for now, while the litigation continues.

A third legal track, separate from the CFTC preemption fight

This is a different line of litigation from the two Kalshi cases this desk has already covered. On August 28, 2026, the Ninth Circuit ruled in a Nevada case that the Commodity Exchange Act does not preempt Nevada's gambling law, and on September 2, 2026, New Jersey asked the Supreme Court to resolve the resulting split with a Third Circuit ruling that reached the opposite conclusion. Both of those cases turn on federal preemption: whether a state's gambling law survives against a CFTC-registered exchange. Blue Lake Rancheria does not raise preemption. It rests on the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a separate federal statute governing gaming on tribal land, so a Supreme Court ruling on the CEA preemption question would not by itself resolve this tribal claim.

A Kalshi spokesperson said the company is considering further appeal, arguing the ruling is difficult to square with federal law that the company reads as giving the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over exchange-traded derivatives. A Robinhood spokesperson said the company is evaluating its legal options and said it respects tribal sovereignty. Neither company has said, in anything we have seen, whether it will keep offering the contracts on the two tribes' land while the case is back before the district court.

What this does not change

California is not one of the seven states with a live regulated iCasino market (Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia), and this ruling does not create or touch any state casino licensing framework. It is also narrower than a final win: the panel revived the tribes' bid for an injunction rather than granting one, and the district court could still deny relief once it weighs the remaining factors. Anyone near Blue Lake Rancheria or Chicken Ranch Rancheria land should treat Kalshi's sports contracts there as under active, unresolved litigation, not settled in either direction.