State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Gaming Control Board v. Blockratize Inc. (Polymarket)
Also captioned State of Nevada v. Blockratize, Inc., et al.
State-court injunction in force; remand appeal on hold (9th Cir.)9th Cir.State v. Platform
Docket last checked November 8, 2026. Snapshot — not legal advice.
As of November 8, 2026, Nevada has a restriction on prediction-market platforms currently in effect. Nevada status and cases →
Overview
The Polymarket twin of the Control Board’s enforcement action against Kalshi. The Board sued the three Polymarket entities in Carson City on January 16, 2026 to stop unlicensed sports wagering in Nevada, and the state court entered a temporary restraining order on January 29. Polymarket removed the case to federal court on February 5, arguing that as a CFTC-registered exchange it acts under a federal officer and that its preemption defense makes the case federal.
Judge Miranda M. Du rejected both theories and remanded the case on March 2, 2026, after a joint hearing with the Kalshi removal, then denied a stay pending appeal. A Ninth Circuit motions panel (Judges Nelson, Bade and Lee) also denied a stay on May 21, 2026, reasoning that litigating in state court is not an irreparable harm and that federalism and comity favored letting Nevada enforce its laws in its own courts. By Polymarket’s own account in its June 2026 opening brief, the state court has since entered a preliminary injunction against it. In July the Ninth Circuit put the remand appeal on hold pending the Assad appeals, and it denied Polymarket’s motion to reconsider on August 28, the day Assad was decided. (All of this is read from the federal record; the Carson City docket is not public online.)
Changes
January 2026
New case
Added to the tracker: the Nevada Gaming Control Board’s enforcement action against Polymarket, remanded to state court in March 2026, where a preliminary injunction has since been entered; Polymarket’s remand appeal is on hold at the Ninth Circuit.
The Nevada Gaming Control Board sues Blockratize, QCX and Adventure One QSS (Polymarket) in Carson City to enjoin unlicensed sports wagering.
January 29, 2026
The state court enters a temporary restraining order.
February 5, 2026
Polymarket removes the case to the District of Nevada (No. 3:26-cv-00089).
March 2, 2026
Judge Du remands the case to state court; Polymarket appeals to the Ninth Circuit (No. 26-1343), and the district court denies a stay pending appeal.
May 21, 2026
A Ninth Circuit motions panel denies Polymarket a stay of the remand pending appeal.
May 29, 2026
The Carson City court enters a preliminary injunction; the Control Board’s June 1 release names the enjoined party as QCX LLC, dba Polymarket US, with a written order to follow.
June 2026
Polymarket’s opening brief in the Ninth Circuit reports that the state court, on remand, has entered a preliminary injunction against it.
July 2026
The Ninth Circuit holds the remand appeal in abeyance pending the Assad appeals; it denies reconsideration on August 28.
September 23, 2026
The Ninth Circuit sets Nevada’s response brief for 30 days after the last mandate issues in the Assad, Crypto.com and Robinhood appeals.
What's next: The Ninth Circuit remand appeal (No. 26-1343) is held behind the three Nevada appeals: on September 23, 2026 the court made Nevada’s response brief due 30 days after the last of the mandates issues in Assad (No. 25-7516), Crypto.com (No. 25-7187) and Robinhood (No. 25-7831). The court denied rehearing in Assad on November 4, 2026, so those mandates are close. The state-court injunction proceedings continue in Carson City.
Parties
Plaintiffs
State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Gaming Control Board
Defendants
Blockratize Inc. d/b/a Polymarket
QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US
Adventure One QSS Inc. d/b/a Polymarket
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.