Injunction denied; on appeal (6th Cir.)6th Cir.Platform v. State
Docket last checked November 8, 2026. Snapshot — not legal advice.
As of November 8, 2026, Michigan has a restriction on prediction-market platforms currently in effect. Michigan status and cases →
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
September 2026
Filing
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.
Robinhood agreed to stop offering new sports contracts in Michigan by September 9 and to close open positions by October 9, in a stipulated order Judge Maloney signed. Michigan forbears while it complies, until the Sixth Circuit appeals are resolved or the Kalshi injunction is dissolved.
Robinhood Derivatives sues Michigan’s Attorney General and Gaming Control Board; the parties stipulate to notice before any enforcement pending the ruling.
June 2026
Judge Maloney denies the preliminary injunction; Robinhood appeals to the Sixth Circuit.
July 2026
The Sixth Circuit denies consolidation but pairs this appeal with Polymarket US’s before one panel.
August 2026
The district court stays proceedings pending the appeal.
August 2026
Robinhood files its opening brief; the CFTC and the Coalition for Prediction Markets file amicus briefs supporting it.
September 4, 2026
Stipulated order: Robinhood stops new Michigan sports contracts by September 9 and closes positions by October 9; Michigan forbears while it complies.
September 15, 2026
Michigan files its appellee brief and requests oral argument.
September 25, 2026
The Sixth Circuit rejects the same preemption theory in Kalshi’s Ohio and Tennessee appeals, in a published opinion binding on this panel.
What's next: On appeal at the Sixth Circuit (No. 26-1542), briefed through Michigan’s September 15 brief. The panel is bound by the court’s September 25, 2026 decision against Kalshi. Meanwhile Robinhood has stood down in Michigan by agreement: under a September 4 stipulated order it stopped offering new Michigan sports contracts after September 9 and was to close open positions by October 9, with the State forbearing until the Sixth Circuit appeals are resolved or the Kalshi injunction is dissolved. No breach has been reported.
Parties
Plaintiffs
Robinhood Derivatives, LLC
Defendants
Dana Nessel (Michigan Attorney General)
Henry L. Williams, Jr. (Executive Director, Michigan Gaming Control Board)
Jim Ananich, Mark Evenson, Deidre A. Lambert-Bounds, Andrew T. Palms and Joni M. Thrower Davis (Michigan Gaming Control Board)
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.