Ninth Circuit Keeps Tribal Appeal Separate; Kalshi Seeks Stay

The Ninth Circuit on May 6 rejected a request by three California tribes to assign their appeal against prediction market operators Kalshi and Robinhood to the same panel handling a Nevada case. Separately, Kalshi asked a federal court to stay a Washington case after a judge remanded it to state court.

The tribes — Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians and Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians — asked the Ninth Circuit to reassign their appeal on the grounds the cases raise overlapping questions about whether event-based contracts are regulated under the Commodity Exchange Act. Their filing said assignment to the same panel would “promote judicial economy, conserve judicial resources, and facilitate efficient resolution of related legal issues,” and noted the California case also raises questions of tribal sovereignty and regulatory authority.

The court denied the request in a brief order, writing, “Due to significant differences between this appeal and North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. State of Nevada … the motion to reassign this appeal to the panel that heard argument in that appeal … is DENIED.” The denial leaves the tribes’ appeal on a separate track from the Nevada litigation.

The tribes sued Kalshi and Robinhood in July 2025, alleging the companies operated illegal sports betting on tribal lands in violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. In November 2025 a federal judge ruled for the prediction market operators, finding the Commodity Exchange Act governs event contracts and that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act governs Kalshi’s online operations rather than IGRA.

In Washington, Kalshi removed a state lawsuit to federal court, arguing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts. U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour rejected removal on May 5 and ordered the case remanded to state court. Kalshi appealed and filed a motion asking the federal court to stay the remand while the appeal proceeds.

In its stay motion Kalshi warned that parallel state proceedings could produce “conflicting federal and state court decisions” and create “judicial chaos.” The company said advancing state litigation while related federal appeals remain unresolved would raise a “rat’s nest of comity and federalism issues” and cited recent favorable rulings in Arizona and the Third Circuit as support for federal review.

The Ninth Circuit denial and Kalshi’s stay request mean the California tribes’ appeal will proceed separately from the Nevada panel, while the Washington case will return to state court unless a court grants Kalshi’s stay.