A California federal judge has sided with Kalshi in a lawsuit brought by three state tribes seeking to block the prediction market platform from offering sports event contracts on their lands. The judge ruled that Kalshi operates under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) rather than tribal or state gambling law.
US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley issued the decision on November 10, 2025, denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
“Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims under the Lanham Act and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.”
The ruling ends an attempt by Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, and Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians to classify Kalshi’s event contracts as Class III gaming conducted on tribal lands, which is governed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
While the ruling ends the tribes’ attempt to secure an injunction, the broader case remains pending. An appeal is likely to follow.
CFTC Has ‘Exclusive Jurisdiction’
Corley emphasized that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) alone regulates Kalshi’s contracts under federal law.
“Plaintiffs have not shown the Court has jurisdiction to decide whether Kalshi’s event contracts violate the Commodity Exchange Act. That decision belongs to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which has ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ over its contract markets.”
She added that “Congress did not say courts could so determine” whether an event contract is contrary to public interest, emphasizing that “the only enforcement mechanism belongs to the Commission … Policy issues are beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.“
That finding effectively protects Kalshi’s event contracts from state or tribal regulation.
UIGEA, Not IGRA, Governs Online Conduct
The tribes’ case centered on the IGRA. However, the judge ruled that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) governs Kalshi’s online operations instead.
“Plaintiffs also have not shown a likelihood of succeeding on its IGRA claim for an additional reason: a later enacted, more specific statute—the UIGEA—governs Kalshi’s contracts.”
She elaborated that UIGEA “expressly addresses internet gaming that can be accessed in locations where such gaming is unlawful, including Indian lands.” Meanwhile, IGRA predates the modern internet.
“So, the UIGEA, not IGRA, governs the challenged internet gambling.“
Kalshi’s Activity Not ‘Unlawful Internet Gambling’
The court carefully reviewed UIGEA’s “bet or wager” definition. It found Kalshi’s contracts exempt.
“The phrase ‘bet or wager’ expressly ‘does not include any transaction conducted on or subject to the rules of a registered entity or exempt board of trade under the Commodity Exchange Act.’”
“Since it is undisputed Kalshi is a registered entity under the Commodity Exchange Act … its internet contracts are not bets or wagers under the UIGEA and therefore do not constitute ‘unlawful internet gambling,’ even if the contracts are received, placed, or transmitted from persons on Indian lands.”
Tribal Compacts Silent on Third Parties
Corley found that the tribes’ gaming compacts regulate only tribal operations, not third-party companies.
“Section 4.1(c) is silent about what companies like Defendants can do on the internet, and only outlines what ‘[t]he Tribe’ is ‘authorized and permitted to operate.’ Specifically, ‘the Tribe will not offer [certain] games through use of the Internet unless others in the state are permitted to do so.’”
She concluded that “maybe, but that does not mean the compact or secretarial procedures prohibit Defendants’ conduct.”
Earlier Federal Wins Reinforce Kalshi’s Position
Corley also cited two recent federal decisions in New Jersey and Nevada that reached similar conclusions:
“See KalshiEx, LLC v. Hendrick, 2025 WL 1073495 (D. Nev. Apr. 9, 2025) (declining to enjoin Kalshi’s event contracts to ‘preserve the status quo, which is that [Kalshi’s] contracts are legal under federal law’); KalshiEx, LLC v. Flaherty, 2025 WL 1218313 (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2025) (granting Kalshi’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin state regulation of its sports-related event contracts).”
These rulings helped persuade the court that Kalshi’s claim of legality was made “in good faith” and supported by judicial consensus.
‘Sports Betting is Legal in All 50 States’ is Opinion, Not False Advertising
On the Lanham Act claim, the tribes alleged Kalshi’s marketing phrase—”Sports Betting is Legal in All 50 States on Kalshi“—was deceptive. Corley disagreed:
“Statements of opinion are generally not actionable under the Lanham Act. Kalshi’s advertisement is merely stating an opinion its product is legal, and given multiple courts have agreed with it, Plaintiffs have not shown the opinion is literally false or that Kalshi lacks a good-faith belief in the opinion’s truth.”
Judge’s Closing Line: Acknowledging the Tension
Corley ended her order by acknowledging the policy tension between federal and tribal interests:
“Kalshi may have found a way around prohibitions on interstate gambling that were created with the Tribes’ best interest in mind. But … in light of the Commodity Exchange Act’s self-certification process, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing a likelihood of success on their IGRA claim.”
What This Means for the Industry
Corley’s ruling could play a significant role in Kalshi’s ongoing legal battles. For one, it confirmed that CEA-registered platforms remain outside most state or tribal gaming restrictions.
It also limits the reach of IGRA, a common argument by tribes. The ruling signals tribes might need to lean on legislative remedies instead of judicial ones.
The November 10 decision also dealt a defeat to state and tribal regulators. It reinforces that CFTC preempts state laws for event contract markets. Still, it could prompt further federal guidance, which many, including US senators, have called for.
Corley’s order also affects marketing. It states that marketing around federally regulated predictions is legal as long as it references event contracts, not gambling.
The post Kalshi Wins Federal Court Battle Against California Tribes Over Sports Event Contracts appeared first on CasinoBeats.
A California federal judge has sided with Kalshi in a lawsuit brought by three state tribes seeking to block the prediction market platform from offering sports event contracts on their lands. The judge ruled that Kalshi operates under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) rather than tribal or state gambling law. US District Judge Jacqueline Scott
The post Kalshi Wins Federal Court Battle Against California Tribes Over Sports Event Contracts appeared first on CasinoBeats.