KalshiEX LLC v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Also captioned KalshiEX LLC v. CFTC
Won below; appeal voluntarily dismissed (no appellate ruling)D.C. Cir.Platform v. CFTC
Docket last checked September 22, 2026. Snapshot — not legal advice.
Overview
The case that opened the door. After the CFTC ordered Kalshi not to list contracts on which party would control Congress, Kalshi sued. In September 2024 Judge Jia M. Cobb vacated the CFTC’s order, holding that the contracts did not involve “unlawful activity” or “gaming” within the Commodity Exchange Act’s special rule, and that the agency had no free-floating public-interest veto. Election contracts have traded continuously since.
The CFTC appealed. A motions panel denied a stay in October 2024 on irreparable-harm grounds alone, calling the merits “close and difficult” (119 F.4th 58); the merits were argued in January 2025; and in May 2025 the Commission voluntarily dismissed its own appeal on stipulated terms. No appellate opinion ever issued and the judgment was never vacated.
Read this case narrowly, because it is routinely overstated. It is district-court authority that binds no one and was never reviewed. It is not preemption authority: the opinion states in terms that “this Court does not make any decision or judgment on the preclusive scope of the CEA’s special rule” — the exact question every state case on this tracker is litigating. And it is not authority that sports contracts are lawful. Applying its own definition of gaming, the court wrote that “event contracts related to any of the sporting events the senator mentioned on the floor could implicate the gaming category” and that “[a]ll these events can easily be construed as games” — the senator’s examples being the Super Bowl, the Kentucky Derby and the Masters. The Ninth Circuit reached the same conclusion about “gaming” in Assad in August 2026.
Changes
Logged September 24, 2026
Correction
Two of our docket links pointed to unrelated cases: the District of Columbia link went to a bankruptcy case and the D.C. Circuit link to a South Carolina family-court matter. They now point to Nos. 1:23-cv-03257 and 24-5205. The stay-opinion link was also replaced with the D.C. Circuit’s October 2, 2024 opinion.
The CFTC orders Kalshi not to list its congressional-control contracts.
November 2023
Kalshi sues the CFTC in the District of Columbia (No. 1:23-cv-03257).
September 2024
Judge Cobb vacates the order; the contracts are held not to involve unlawful activity or gaming under the special rule.
September 2024
The CFTC appeals to the D.C. Circuit (No. 24-5205).
October 2024
A motions panel denies the CFTC a stay, calling the merits close and difficult (119 F.4th 58). Trading begins.
January 2025
The appeal is argued on the merits.
May 2025
The CFTC voluntarily dismisses its own appeal by unopposed motion; the court grants it and the mandate issues. No opinion, no vacatur.
What's next: Closed. The CFTC withdrew its 2024 event-contract rulemaking and its 2025 sports-contract staff advisory in February 2026. Its June 2026 proposed rule on prediction markets closed for comment July 27, 2026; no final rule had been published in the Federal Register as of September 22, 2026.
Parties
Plaintiffs
KalshiEX LLC
Defendants
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
This page is informational, not legal advice. Nearly every entry in this tracker is a preliminary ruling under appeal. Always verify a platform's current, location-specific eligibility directly with the venue before relying on this page.