The states where Kalshi has a court record
Fourteen states where Kalshi has a court record, each with the filing, the ruling and whether we read the document or a report.
Fourteen states have a filing, an order or a cease-and-desist we can point at a document for. They do not agree with each other, and that is the most useful thing on this page: a federal appeals court and a federal district court answered the same question in opposite directions within four months.
Each row links to the full page, which sets out what was filed, what was decided, and whether we read the document or a report of it.
The fourteen
| State | Signed the 37-state brief | What happened |
|---|---|---|
| Nevada | Yes | Co-wrote the 37-state brief. Its licensing regime is set out in it |
| Ohio | Yes | The other co-author. Its voluntary exclusion list puts a duty on the operator |
| Texas | No | No enforcement action, and its attorney general declined twice to join |
| Arizona | Yes | Charged Kalshi criminally, then was itself enjoined at the federal government's request |
| Connecticut | Yes | A federal judge denied Kalshi an injunction in August 2026, holding the contracts are not swaps |
| Michigan | Yes | A state court ordered trades unwound in June 2026. The CFTC then ordered them honoured |
| California | Yes | The attorney general argues, but the enforcement attempt came from three tribes |
| New Jersey | Yes | The Third Circuit affirmed an injunction for Kalshi in April 2026, holding the contracts are swaps |
| New York | Yes | Kalshi lost its challenge to the Gaming Commission, and the state then sued the exchange |
| Massachusetts | No | Not a signatory because it is the plaintiff. This is the case everyone signed behind |
| Tennessee | Yes | Ordered Kalshi to stop and was blocked in federal court in February 2026 |
| Maryland | Yes | Where the preemption argument first failed, in August 2025 |
| Illinois | Yes | Taxed prediction markets and demanded a $15 million sports betting licence |
| Rhode Island | Yes | Kalshi and the attorney general sued each other on the same afternoon |
The other thirty-six states and DC do not have pages here. That is deliberate. For most of them we could establish that something happened and almost nothing about what, and a page carrying one sentence and a state name is exactly what makes the existing coverage useless. The full signature block for all fifty-one jurisdictions is on the state legality hub, and every dated event we hold is on the litigation changelog.
Before you read any of them
Three questions get run together on almost every page that ranks for this subject, and separating them resolves most of the contradictions:
- Is it lawful for me to trade here? State law.
- Will the platform let me in? Geofencing, which the platform sets and can change without notice.
- Am I eligible for the sign-up promo? A marketing offer.
None of these pages answers 2 or 3. We have not tested geofencing, and promo eligibility is not a legal fact. What they answer is what has been filed and what has been decided.
Questions people actually type
Which states is Kalshi banned in? None of these pages will tell you that, because no page honestly can. What the record shows is where states have acted and where courts have ruled, and the rulings conflict. Michigan and Connecticut went against Kalshi; New Jersey and Tennessee went for it.
Is Kalshi legal in my state if it is not listed here? We do not know, and neither does anyone publishing a fifty-state table without citations. Not being listed here means we found no document, not that nothing exists.
Which court decisions matter most? The Third Circuit in April 2026, because it is a federal court of appeals rather than a district court, and the Connecticut decision in August 2026, because it reached the opposite conclusion on the threshold question of whether these contracts are swaps at all.
Why does the CFTC keep appearing? Because it is a party, not a referee. It has sued nine states to assert exclusive jurisdiction and, in Michigan, ordered the exchange to honour trades a state court had ordered unwound.
Are these pages legal advice? No, and we are not lawyers. They are readings of public documents, each linked so you can check it. If your question is whether you personally may trade, ask someone licensed to answer it in your state.
Sources
This page summarises the state pages and adds nothing of its own. Every claim in the table is stated more carefully, with its evidence tier, on the page it links to.
- https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/amicus-curiae/massachusetts-v-kalshiex-llc-amicus-brief-2026.pdf the 37-state amici brief, SJC-13906, filed 24 April 2026. Downloaded and read direct 20 Aug 2026. Source for the signatory column.
- Each state page below carries its own sources : read direct 20 Aug 2026, and each says whether the underlying document was read or only a report of it.