Maryland is where Kalshi's preemption argument first lost
Maryland ordered Kalshi to stop, Kalshi sued to block it and was denied an injunction in August 2025. The case is on appeal.
Maryland matters out of proportion to its size in this story because it came early. Maryland issued a cease-and-desist, Kalshi sued to block enforcement, and in August 2025 a federal district court refused to grant Kalshi a preliminary injunction. The case went up on appeal.
Three questions get answered as though they were one
Most state lists you will find are answering a different question from the one in their headline. The three that get run together:
- 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.
The state legality hub sets out which attorneys general have taken a position on the record, across all fifty-one jurisdictions, and Kalshi legality by state indexes every state with a court record in one line each.
What follows, and where it comes from
Maryland signed the 37-state brief. The rest of this page is Maryland specific. Where a claim rests on reporting rather than on a document we read ourselves, it says so at that point rather than in a footnote.
The order and the challenge to it
Maryland regulators issued a cease-and-desist letter over Kalshi's sports event contracts. Kalshi sued to stop the state enforcing it, making the same preemption argument it has made everywhere: that the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over contracts traded on a designated contract market.
The early loss
In August 2025 the district court denied Kalshi's motion for a preliminary injunction, and the case proceeded on appeal. That makes Maryland one of the first places the preemption argument failed at the trial level, months before the Third Circuit accepted it for New Jersey in April 2026.
Why the order of events matters when you read other pages
Coverage of this question frequently cites whichever ruling suits its conclusion without noting when it happened or which court issued it. The sequence here runs: Maryland denies an injunction, August 2025. Tennessee grants one, February 2026. The Third Circuit affirms one, April 2026. Arizona is enjoined at the federal government's request, May 2026. Michigan wins a state restraining order, June 2026. Connecticut denies an injunction, August 2026. A page quoting only one of those is not wrong, it is partial.
The provisions in play
| Provision | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Maryland sports wagering law | the basis of the cease-and-desist, not read directly by us |
| Commodity Exchange Act preemption | the argument the district court declined to accept at that stage |
Section numbers are given so you can look them up. Where we have not read the provision directly, the sources list says so.
What we could not verify
- The order and the docket. Not retrieved. The August 2025 date and the outcome come from reporting read direct on 20 Aug 2026.
- The case caption, the district judge and the appellate court.
- The current status of the appeal.
- Whether Maryland has taken any further step.
Questions people actually type
Is Kalshi legal in Maryland? There is no yes or no here that would be honest. This page sets out what Maryland has actually done, what its law says, and what a court has or has not decided, so you can see the state of play rather than a verdict nobody has issued.
Has Maryland taken action against Kalshi? The section above answers this for Maryland specifically. Across the country, reporting we read describes fifteen states having sued, investigated or sent cease-and-desist orders over gambling licensure. The states differ, and a page that gives one national answer is flattening that.
Does the CFTC designation settle it? No. Kalshi is a CFTC-designated contract market and nobody disputes that. Whether the designation displaces state gaming law is the contested question, argued through 7 U.S.C. section 2(e) and the clear-statement rule in Whitman, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). Two federal district courts have answered it differently.
Can I be prosecuted for trading in Maryland? We are not lawyers and this is not legal advice. The filings we read are about whether the exchange may offer the contracts, not about individual traders. If that is your real question it is one for someone licensed to answer it in Maryland.
Is the app blocked in Maryland? We have not tested it. Geofencing is a platform setting that changes without notice and is a different question from legality.
How many states are arguing this? Thirty-seven states plus the District of Columbia signed the brief, which is 38 jurisdictions, and Massachusetts is separately the party bringing the case. The full signature block is on the state legality hub.
What this page is not
It is not legal advice and we are not lawyers. It is a reading of public documents and reporting, all linked, so you can check it yourself.
Sources
Everything on this page is attributed to the document it came from, and where we read reporting about a court order rather than the order itself, the page says so in the body as well as here. Read direct on 20 Aug 2026 unless stated otherwise.
- https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/amicus-curiae/massachusetts-v-kalshiex-llc-amicus-brief-2026.pdf Brief of Amici Curiae of Nevada, Ohio, 35 Other States, and the District of Columbia Supporting Appellee, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. KalshiEx LLC, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court No. SJC-13906, Appeals Court No. 2026-P-244. 55 pages, filed 24 April 2026. Downloaded and read direct 20 Aug 2026.
- 7 U.S.C. section 2(e) : the Commodity Exchange Act provision the preemption argument turns on, cited in the brief.
- Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001) : cited in the brief for the clear-statement rule.