Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Nessel

Overview

The case that tests whether state gambling authority reaches the distribution layer. Robinhood Derivatives, LLC is not an exchange — it is a CFTC-registered futures commission merchant that routes event-contract orders to venues including KalshiEX, ForecastEx and Rothera. It sued Michigan’s Attorney General and Gaming Control Board in March 2026 for a permanent injunction and declaratory relief, and Judge Paul L. Maloney denied it a preliminary injunction on June 17, 2026, in an opinion (ECF No. 39, 33 pp.) issued alongside the one denying Polymarket US. The distribution question is addressed head-on: the court held Robinhood’s products are not swaps or other CFTC-jurisdiction derivatives even though its role in those transactions is as an intermediary, so being a broker rather than an exchange did not change the answer.

Robinhood appealed the next day. The Sixth Circuit denied its motion to consolidate with the Kalshi appeals in July 2026 but ordered the appeal submitted to the same panel, the same day, as Polymarket US’s.

Changes

Logged September 22, 2026

• FilingSeptember 15, 2026

  Michigan filed its Sixth Circuit brief and asked for oral argument. Our entry had also omitted Robinhood’s August 17 opening brief and the August 24 amicus briefs from the CFTC and the Coalition for Prediction Markets.

  CourtListener — No. 26-1542 (6th Cir.)

Timeline

What's next: On appeal at the Sixth Circuit (No. 26-1542). Robinhood filed its opening brief August 17, 2026; the CFTC and the Coalition for Prediction Markets filed amicus briefs August 24; Michigan filed its brief September 15 and asked for oral argument. It will be submitted to the same panel, on the same day, as Polymarket US’s appeal. District proceedings are stayed pending the appeal.

Parties