Verticals / Prediction markets
Prediction markets
Prediction markets are contested in 23 states as of Oct 11, 2026.
CFTC-registered event contracts (Kalshi, Polymarket, etc.) on sports/events. Trading volume, federal licenses and lawsuits are on the prediction markets overview.
LiveLegal, not launchedLimitedContestedProhibitedNot authorizedRepealedNA
By state
| State | Status | Launched | Model | Current tax | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Contested | The Department of Gaming issued a cease-and-desist letter to Kalshi (and Crypto.com) around May 2025, calling its Arizona event-contract trading unlicensed illegal gambling. Kalshi preemptively sued Attorney General Kris Mayes and Department officials in the U.S. District Court for Arizona on March 12, 2026, seeking to block enforcement on CFTC-preemption grounds. On March 16, 2026 the Arizona AG filed criminal charges (20 misdemeanor counts) against Kalshi and Kalshi Trading LLC in state Superior Court -- the first criminal prediction-market case filed by any state -- covering unlicensed wagers on pro/college sports, player props, and the 2028 presidential race. On March 17, 2026 the federal judge denied Kalshi's request to block state enforcement and ordered Kalshi to show cause by March 20, 2026 why the federal court should not abstain given the pending state criminal case. Both matters were pending as of this file's as_of date. | |||
| Arkansas | Contested | Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin issued Opinion No. 2025-073 on October 23, 2025 (requested by Sen. Bryan King), concluding that a Kalshi-style event-contract platform constitutes gambling/gaming requiring state licensure because a participant wagers on an uncertain future outcome, and that transmitting sports data "for the purpose of gaming" independently violates state law. The opinion is advisory and carries no direct enforcement force; no cease-and-desist letter or lawsuit against a named platform was identified in this research, distinguishing Arkansas's approach from states that have directly ordered Kalshi to cease operations. Arkansas sits in the Eighth Circuit, which has not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory as of Oct. 2026. | |||
| California | Contested | Three California tribes (Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians) sued Kalshi and Robinhood over prediction-market sports contracts offered on/affecting tribal land; U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the tribes' preliminary-injunction motion in November 2025, finding they had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Litigation remained ongoing as of the most recent reporting reviewed. California sits in the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against Kalshi on CFTC-preemption grounds on Aug. 28, 2026 in KalshiEX v. Assad (a Nevada case); kept status as contested rather than not_authorized because California's own federal district court denied the tribes' injunction motion on the merits (pre-dating and factually distinct from the Ninth Circuit's later Nevada ruling), and no California-specific appellate or state-enforcement outcome has superseded that denial. | |||
| Connecticut | Contested | The DCP Gaming Division issued cease-and-desist letters dated Dec. 2, 2025 to Kalshi, Robinhood, and Crypto.com, ordering them to stop offering sports event contracts to CT residents and to let residents withdraw held funds, citing the lack of a state wagering license, no minimum-age (21) protections, and no consumer-dispute recourse. Kalshi sued in the U.S. District Court for Connecticut on CFTC-preemption grounds; Judge Vernon Oliver denied Kalshi's preliminary-injunction motion, and Kalshi appealed to the Second Circuit. Connecticut (AG William Tong, Gov. Lamont, and DCP Commissioner Bryan Cafferelli) separately sued Kalshi seeking an injunction against continued unlicensed sports-event-contract offers in the state. Connecticut was reported as the ninth state to issue Kalshi a cease-and-desist order. Connecticut sits in the 2nd Circuit (with NY and VT); Kalshi's appeal of the CT district court loss is pending there, so no 2nd Circuit ruling controls yet. The 3rd Cir. ruling for Kalshi (NJ, 2026-04-06) and the 6th Cir./9th Cir. rulings do not bind Connecticut. | |||
| Illinois | Contested | 1.75% HANDLE (online) | The IGB considers CFTC-registered sports/event contracts unlicensed sports wagering under the Sports Wagering Act and Criminal Code. It sent cease-and-desist letters to Crypto.com, Kalshi, and Robinhood (4/1/2025) and to Polymarket (1/27/2026); it also warned IGB licensees in October 2025 that participating in prediction markets "may impact that party's suitability for licensure." The CFTC and federal government have sued Illinois (among other states) arguing the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over these contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act; that litigation was ongoing as of this writing. Updated on audit (2026-10-10), verified against the primary Public Act 104-0468 text (fetched directly from ilga.gov via a Chrome-impersonating client): P.A. 104-0468 adds the verbatim definition "'Exchange wager' includes an agreement, contract, transaction, or swap that is offered, traded, or executed on a prediction market or exchange tied to a sporting contest or sporting event," and amends 230 ILCS 45/25-10's "sports wagering" definition to include "exchange wagering" among its listed forms (while separately excluding "fantasy contests" as defined in new Sec. 25-120.1). So exchange wagers are permissible only through IGB-licensed master sports wagering licensees, taxed at a verbatim-confirmed "1.75% of each exchange wager" for the first 5,000,000 exchange wagers a licensee conducts in a fiscal year, rising to "3.5% of each exchange wager" above that count (see tax_rates), deposited into the Sports Wagering Fund. Article 25 (containing this provision) takes effect 2026-07-01. The amendment does not itself license or authorize existing unregistered platforms (Kalshi, Polymarket, etc.), which remain unlicensed and subject to the cease-and-desist actions above; the IGB's cease-and-desist letters predate this law and nothing in the Act reverses them. Illinois sits in the 7th Circuit, which has not ruled on CEA preemption of state prediction-market/sports-wagering law; compare 3rd Cir. (NJ, 2026-04-06, for Kalshi), 6th Cir. (OH/TN, 2026-09-25, against Kalshi), 9th Cir. (NV, 2026-08-28, against Kalshi). | ||
| Iowa | Contested | Kalshi sued Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and the IRGC in federal court (filed around 2026-03-11), seeking a declaration that the federal Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC "exclusive jurisdiction" over designated-contract-market trading preempt Iowa's gambling and election-wagering laws as applied to its event contracts; the suit followed an AG meeting Kalshi's counsel said made clear Bird believes its offerings violate Iowa law. In September 2026, U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher denied Kalshi's request for a preliminary injunction, holding that sports event contracts are not "swaps" under the Commodity Exchange Act and that Kalshi had not exhausted other avenues before suing, leaving Kalshi open to Iowa gambling-law enforcement. Separately, Senate File 2470 (passed the Senate 45-1 in late March 2026; reported out of a House subcommittee by late April 2026, final disposition unconfirmed) would license and tax prediction markets rather than ban them: a 20% tax on adjusted revenue from Iowa users plus a 20% excise tax on each contract's purchase price, with an initial license fee reported as high as $20M after a floor amendment. Iowa's AG also joined a ~41-state multistate comment to the CFTC arguing prediction markets like Kalshi/Polymarket function as unregulated sportsbooks. | |||
| Kentucky | Contested | No cease-and-desist letter was identified, but Kentucky has taken some of the most aggressive 2026 action against sports-event-contract platforms of any state. HB 757 (2026 Ky. Acts ch. 161, enacted via veto override 4/14/2026) made Kentucky the first state to impose an excise tax on prediction-market operators' transaction fees (House and Senate committee substitutes proposed rates ranging 14.25%-17.25%; the final enacted rate was not confirmed), while HB 904 (2026 Ky. Acts ch. 184) restricts KHRGC-licensed tracks and fantasy-contest licensees from contracting with event-contract platforms and states that the chapter does not itself authorize/legalize such regulation. The tax drew a lawsuit from the Kalshi/Polymarket-aligned Coalition for Fair Markets about a week before AG Russell Coleman sued Kalshi and Polymarket separately (June 17, 2026, Franklin Circuit Court) alleging unlicensed sports wagering; the CFTC then sued Kentucky (reported as the 9th state the CFTC has sued over this issue), challenging the tax and related restrictions as preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act. All litigation was pending as of Oct. 2026. Kentucky sits in the Sixth Circuit, which ruled against Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory on Sept. 25, 2026 in KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel (No. 26-5235, Tennessee) and KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler (No. 26-3196, Ohio) — Kentucky was not itself a party to either appeal, but that panel decision is binding Sixth Circuit precedent on the preemption question the CFTC's suit against Kentucky also raises. | |||
| Maryland | Contested | MLGCC sent cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Robinhood, and North American Derivatives Exchange/Crypto.com around April 2025 (Maryland reportedly the 5th state to do so), asserting their sports event contracts are 'indistinguishable' from sports bets requiring a state license. Kalshi sued roughly two weeks later in Maryland federal court, arguing CFTC/Commodity Exchange Act preemption and that it is a federally regulated 'designated contract market,' not a state-licensable sportsbook. On August 1, 2025, U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson denied Kalshi's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding Kalshi 'failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits' and reasoning state gambling law and the Commodity Exchange Act can operate 'in tandem' -- a split from preliminary-injunction wins Kalshi had obtained in Nevada and New Jersey. Kalshi appealed to the Fourth Circuit (No. 25-1892) and sought an injunction pending appeal; Maryland gave written assurance it would not enforce against Kalshi pending that appeal (briefing ran roughly Sept. 15-Oct. 15, 2025), after which Kalshi withdrew its injunction request. The panel (Judges Gregory, Thacker, Benjamin) heard oral argument May 7, 2026; no ruling had issued as of this research pass (Oct. 2026), so Maryland's non-enforcement arrangement with Kalshi remains in effect. The City of Baltimore separately sued Kalshi and Polymarket in Baltimore Circuit Court in August 2025 over sports event contracts (single-source report, not independently corroborated). Maryland sits in the 4th Circuit (with WV, VA, NC, SC); of the circuits that have ruled, the 3rd Cir. (NJ, 2026-04-06) sided with Kalshi while the 9th and 6th Cir. ruled against it, but none of those rulings bind the 4th Circuit, which will decide independently. | |||
| Massachusetts | Contested | AG Andrea Campbell sued KalshiEX LLC in Suffolk Superior Court (filed ~Sept. 2025) alleging it offers unlicensed sports wagering disguised as "event contracts," including to 18-20 year-olds below the state's 21+ sports-wagering age minimum. Judge Christopher Barry-Smith granted a preliminary injunction against Kalshi on Jan. 20, 2026; an appeals court stayed enforcement of that injunction in Feb. 2026 pending appeal, allowing Kalshi to keep operating while the case proceeds. Litigation ongoing as of Oct. 2026. | |||
| Michigan | Contested | MGCB filed comments with the CFTC in May 2025 arguing Kalshi's sports-event contracts violate Michigan law, without itself joining the states that sent cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi at that time. In March 2026, AG Dana Nessel sued Kalshi in Ingham County Circuit Court alleging violation of the Lawful Sports Betting Act; Kalshi's attempt to remove the case to federal court was denied on remand. On June 29, 2026 the Ingham County Circuit Court granted a temporary restraining order halting Kalshi from "engaging in or advertising its internet sports betting operation in Michigan" while the litigation continues; MGCB subsequently withdrew from the National Council on Problem Gambling over its Kalshi partnership (July 2026). On Sept. 1, 2026, Ingham County Circuit Judge Rosemarie Aquilina signed a preliminary injunction barring Kalshi from offering, clearing, settling or facilitating any contract that could be classified as online sports betting in Michigan, with a $500,000/day fine for geofencing violations; the injunction is expected to remain in effect until final judgment. Michigan sits in the 6th Circuit. On 2026-09-25 that circuit decided KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler (Ohio, No. 26-3196) together with KalshiEX v. Orgel (Tennessee, No. 26-5235), ruling against Kalshi on CEA-swap and preemption grounds; this is binding precedent in Michigan's circuit and supports the state court's injunction, though it is not itself a Michigan case and no Michigan source was found copying its caption into this file. Consistent with 9th Cir. (NV, decided 2026-08-28, against Kalshi); contrasts with 3rd Cir. (NJ, decided 2026-04-06, for Kalshi). | |||
| Minnesota | Contested | Minnesota became the first state to enact a specific statutory ban on prediction markets: Gov. Walz signed a public-safety bill (House 100-32, Senate 57-9) on May 18, 2026 making it a felony to operate or promote a prediction-market platform offering event contracts (including sports-related contracts) to Minnesotans, effective Aug. 1, 2026. Kalshi, Polymarket and the CFTC sued on federal-preemption grounds; U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez (D. Minn.) issued a preliminary injunction on 2026-07-27 blocking enforcement against CFTC-registered designated contract markets, finding the ban likely preempted in many (not all) applications, days before the Aug. 1 effective date. Minnesota AG Keith Ellison maintains prediction markets are gambling and is continuing to defend the law; implied-preemption and First Amendment claims remain unresolved. Status changed from `prohibited` to `contested` on audit (2026-10-10): the statutory ban remains on the books but is enjoined and not currently enforceable against the plaintiffs. Minnesota sits in the 8th Circuit, which has not yet ruled on prediction-market preemption; the 6th Cir. (KalshiEX v. Schuler/Orgel, decided 2026-09-25, against Kalshi) and 9th Cir. (NV, decided 2026-08-28, against Kalshi) and 3rd Cir. (NJ, decided 2026-04-06, for Kalshi) splits do not bind Minnesota. | |||
| Missouri | Contested | AG Catherine Hanaway sent cease-and-desist letters September 18, 2026 to Kalshi, Polymarket, Crypto.com, Robinhood, Underdog, and Novig, asserting sports "event contracts" are unlicensed sports wagering under Amendment 2 and ordering operators to obtain an MGC license or stop offering sports contracts to Missourians within 30 days. Operators argue CFTC-regulated contracts are exclusively federally preempted. PrizePicks (not a letter recipient) suspended its Team Picks sports-contract product in Missouri. | |||
| Montana | Contested | Montana sits in the Ninth Circuit. Gambling Control Division sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist (~March 2025); the parties agreed in April 2025 to pause enforcement pending Nevada federal litigation; that Nevada injunction was dissolved in November 2025 and the Ninth Circuit affirmed against Kalshi in KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad, No. 25-7516 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2026) (holding sports-event contracts are not CFTC-preempted swaps); on April 6, 2026 (before the Ninth Circuit's ruling) the Division issued an order finding Kalshi's event contracts constitute illegal gambling and threatening criminal action, prompting Kalshi to sue AG Austin Knudsen and Division officials in the U.S. District Court for Montana seeking injunctive/declaratory relief on federal preemption grounds. The Ninth Circuit's Assad ruling is binding Ninth Circuit precedent favoring Montana's position on the sports-contract preemption question, though its direct effect on Kalshi's separate Montana suit was not independently confirmed in this pass. | |||
| Nevada | Contested | Nevada sits in the Ninth Circuit. Gaming Control Board sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter (March 2025); Kalshi sued and won a preliminary injunction (April 2025, Judge Andrew P. Gordon, D. Nev., docket 2:26-cv-00406 line of litigation); Gordon dissolved the injunction (Nov. 2025); the Ninth Circuit affirmed in KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad, No. 25-7516 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2026), holding Kalshi's sports-event contracts are not CFTC-preempted swaps because the CEA's swap definition requires a nexus to a financial/economic/commercial consequence, not a sporting outcome -- so Nevada's gambling law is not preempted as to sports contracts -- and remanded the separate election-contracts preemption question to the district court. Board has since pursued a civil enforcement action in Carson City District Court; Kalshi could seek en banc or Supreme Court review, and the ruling directly conflicts with the Third Circuit's Kalshi-friendly New Jersey decision (2026-04-06), raising the odds of eventual Supreme Court review. | |||
| New Jersey | Contested | DGE sent cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi and Robinhood on March 27, 2025, alleging unauthorized sports wagering (citing NJ's constitutional ban on betting on in-state college teams/events). Kalshi sued in federal court; on April 28, 2025 Judge Edward Kiel enjoined DGE from enforcing against Kalshi's sports-related event contracts, holding the CEA gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction. DGE appealed; on April 6, 2026 a divided Third Circuit panel (2-1) affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding the CEA both field- and conflict-preempts NJ's gambling law as applied to Kalshi's sports-related event contracts and that those contracts are CFTC-regulated swaps. The ruling is preliminary; the case returns to the district court on the merits, and NJ was reported to be seeking Supreme Court review. New Jersey sits in the 3rd Circuit (with DE and PA); this 3rd Cir. panel decision is binding circuit precedent there pending any further review. Other states (NY, CT, RI and others) have brought parallel Kalshi/prediction-market actions raising the same CFTC-preemption defense, but those suits are in other circuits and are tracked in each state's own file rather than cited here. | |||
| New Mexico | Contested | In May 2026 the Pueblos of Pojoaque, Sandia and Isleta and the Mescalero Apache Tribe sued Kalshi in federal court alleging its sports-event contracts enable unlicensed sports gambling on/affecting tribal gaming markets. In June 2026 (announced ~June 4) NM AG Raul Torrez sued Kalshi in the First Judicial District Court (Santa Fe), alleging Kalshi operates an unlicensed sportsbook outside the tribal-compact/state-licensing framework that is the state's only lawful path to gaming, and citing a 2025 survey finding 3.9% of NM adults screened positive for problem gambling (vs. ~1% nationally). Kalshi maintains it offers federally regulated event contracts, not gambling, and had not sought a NM sportsbook license as of this review. Polymarket separately sued AG Torrez and state gaming officials in federal court seeking to preempt similar enforcement against it. No ruling in the New Mexico cases was identified as of this review. New Mexico sits in the Tenth Circuit, which (unlike the pro-Kalshi Third Circuit [NJ, Apr. 2026] or the anti-Kalshi Sixth Circuit [Sept. 2026] and Ninth Circuit [Nev., Aug. 2026]) had not itself ruled on Kalshi/CFTC-preemption exchange-trading litigation as of Oct. 2026 -- making New Mexico's own AG/tribal suits the most direct active litigation on point. | |||
| New York | Contested | The Gaming Commission issued a cease-and-desist position against Kalshi's sports-related event contracts (treating them as unlicensed sports wagering), and on July 31, 2026 Governor Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James announced New York had sued KalshiEX LLC, alleging Kalshi is running an illegal, unlicensed gambling operation under NY law and seeking forfeiture of illegal gains, consumer restitution, and penalties of three times Kalshi's illegal gains. Kalshi disputes state authority on CFTC-preemption grounds, as it has in other states' suits. No final NY court ruling was independently confirmed in this research pass. New York sits in the 2nd Circuit (with CT and VT); no 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on prediction-market preemption has been identified, so this litigation remains unresolved at the circuit level. The 3rd Cir. ruling for Kalshi on preemption (NJ, decided 2026-04-06) and the 6th Cir. ruling against Kalshi (KalshiEX v. Orgel/Schuler, decided 2026-09-25) do not bind New York. | |||
| Ohio | Contested | OCCC issued cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Robinhood and Crypto.com on Mar. 31, 2025, finding their sports event contracts meet Ohio's definition of sports gaming and require licensure; compliance deadline was Apr. 14, 2025. OCCC Executive Director Matthew Schuler sent a further letter on Oct. 6, 2025; Kalshi sued OCCC and AG Dave Yost in federal court (S.D. Ohio) around Oct. 7, 2025, seeking a TRO/injunction on Supremacy Clause (CFTC exclusivity) grounds; the district court denied a preliminary injunction. Ohio sits in the 6th Circuit. On 2026-09-25, a 6th Circuit panel decided KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler (No. 26-3196, Ohio) together with the companion Tennessee appeal KalshiEX v. Orgel (No. 26-5235), ruling against Kalshi: the panel held Kalshi had not shown its sports-event contracts are "swaps" under the Commodity Exchange Act, and that even if they were, Ohio's sports-gaming law would not be preempted; it affirmed the S.D. Ohio denial of Kalshi's preliminary injunction. OCCC can continue enforcement (including a separate ~$5M fine pursued against Kalshi) while the underlying case proceeds; status remains `contested` pending further district-court proceedings/appeal rather than `prohibited`, since no final merits judgment has issued. This ruling also creates binding 6th Circuit precedent against CEA preemption for other 6th Circuit states (incl. MI, KY, TN). Consistent with 9th Cir. (NV, decided 2026-08-28, against Kalshi); contrasts with 3rd Cir. (NJ, decided 2026-04-06, for Kalshi). | |||
| Rhode Island | Contested | Attorney General Peter Neronha filed suit against Kalshi and Polymarket on May 21, 2026 in Providence County Superior Court, alleging their sports-related "event contracts" constitute unlicensed "casino gaming" and "online sports wagering" under RI law, seeking a permanent injunction; the complaint also alleges RI's licensed sports-wagering handle fell 8% from 2024 to 2025, partly attributed to the platforms. Kalshi filed a competing federal suit against Rhode Island asserting exclusive CFTC/federal jurisdiction over its contracts, citing preliminary injunctions it won against New Jersey and against Tennessee officials. No final ruling was independently confirmed in this research pass. Rhode Island sits in the 1st Circuit (with ME, NH, MA); no 1st Circuit ruling on prediction-market preemption has been identified, so no binding circuit precedent applies here. The 3rd Cir. ruling for Kalshi (NJ, 2026-04-06) and the 6th Cir./9th Cir. rulings against Kalshi do not bind Rhode Island. | |||
| Tennessee | Contested | The Sports Wagering Council issued a January 2026 order naming Kalshi, Polymarket, and Nadex and directing them to cease offering sports-event contracts without an SWC license. Kalshi obtained a preliminary injunction from U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 2026) blocking enforcement. On September 25, 2026 the Sixth Circuit (KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel, No. 26-5235, decided together with the Ohio case KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, No. 26-3196; unanimous opinion by Senior Judge Julia Smith Gibbons) vacated the Tennessee injunction and remanded, holding Kalshi had not shown its sports event contracts meet the Commodity Exchange Act's "swap" definition (the link to economic consequences must be "intrinsic," not merely an indirect effect on leagues, sponsors or local businesses) and that the Act would not preempt Tennessee's sports-wagering law even if they were swaps. This is the second federal appellate ruling against Kalshi's preemption theory (after the Ninth Circuit, for Nevada, in Aug. 2026); the Third Circuit sided with Kalshi in a New Jersey case, and New Jersey petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on 9/2/2026 to resolve the circuit split (Kalshi's response due 11/9/2026). Separately, 2026 SB 1992 made it a Class E felony to attempt to influence a prediction-market event's outcome for financial gain (1-6 years, fines up to $3,000). Status marked contested given the case was remanded, not finally resolved, and the litigation is ongoing. | |||
| Utah | Contested | HB 243 (2026) added "proposition bet" ("a gambling bet on an individual action, statistic, occurrence, or non-occurrence") to the statutory definition of gambling, targeting CFTC-registered sports event contracts. Kalshi preemptively sued Utah officials in federal court (Feb. 2026) seeking to block enforcement on CFTC-preemption grounds; a federal judge ruled in August 2026 that Utah may enforce its gambling laws against Kalshi, though AG Derek Brown had not announced enforcement steps as of that ruling and Kalshi's contracts remained available to Utah users. The August 2026 ruling was itself the Utah federal district court, not the Tenth Circuit; the Tenth Circuit (unlike the pro-Kalshi Third Circuit [NJ, Apr. 2026] or the anti-Kalshi Sixth Circuit [Sept. 2026] and Ninth Circuit [Nev., Aug. 2026]) had not issued its own appellate ruling on Kalshi/CFTC-preemption litigation as of Oct. 2026. | |||
| Washington | Contested | WSGC guidance stated CFTC-regulated sports/event contracts are not authorized gambling activity in Washington. The WA Attorney General (Nick Brown) sued Kalshi in King County Superior Court in March 2026; a preliminary injunction issued July 2026 barred Kalshi from offering sports, political, and entertainment event contracts to Washington residents (threatened fines around $120,000/day) and required geofencing. A final order (Aug. 13, 2026) implementing that injunction requires Kalshi to cease offering wagers on sports, elections, politics, entertainment, culture, and tech/science to Washington residents, with an IP/residency-based geofence due Aug. 19, 2026 and a multi-source geofencing solution due Sept. 2, 2026; Kalshi sought a stay from the WA Court of Appeals. The Washington Indian Gaming Association supported the state's action; Kalshi has pursued counter-litigation against state regulators nationally, including arguments grounded in CFTC exclusive jurisdiction. Washington sits in the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against Kalshi on Aug. 28, 2026 in KalshiEX v. Assad (Nevada) on CFTC-preemption grounds; that ruling is consistent with (and supports) Washington's own state-court position, though Washington's case has proceeded independently on state-law (Gambling Act/Consumer Protection Act) grounds rather than relying on the Ninth Circuit ruling itself. | |||
| Wisconsin | Contested | AG Josh Kaul sued Kalshi, Robinhood, and Coinbase in Dane County Circuit Court on April 23, 2026, alleging their sports "event contracts" violate the commercial-gambling statute (Wis. Stat. § 945.03(1m)) and constitute a public nuisance, and seeking to bar sports contracts for Wisconsin-located customers. Defendants removed the case to federal court the next day (State of Wisconsin v. Kalshi, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-00378, W.D. Wis.). The CFTC separately sought to block the state suit on federal-preemption grounds; a federal judge denied the CFTC's request for a preliminary injunction in July 2026 (exact date/judge not independently confirmed this session), finding Wisconsin's gambling statute likely applies. Separately, the Ho-Chunk Nation's own suit against Kalshi over online sports gambling in Wisconsin was allowed to proceed. As of this research date, no court order actually stops Kalshi/Robinhood from offering sports-related contracts in Wisconsin. | |||
| Alabama | Not authorized | No Alabama-specific attorney general, gaming regulator, or securities-commission cease-and-desist or lawsuit against event-contract platforms (e.g., Kalshi, Polymarket) was identified in this review, and no statute authorizes them; sports-outcome event contracts would fall under Alabama's general unlawful-gambling-device and gambling-activity statutes (Ala. Code §§ 13A-12-20 et seq.) absent an exception, the same basis used elsewhere in this file for not_authorized/prohibited verticals with no specific carve-out. Alabama sits in the 11th Circuit, which has not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory as of Oct. 2026; the circuit split is between the 3rd Circuit (for Kalshi, NJ, 4/6/2026), and the 6th and 9th Circuits (against Kalshi: KalshiEX v. Orgel/Schuler, TN/OH, 9/25/2026; KalshiEX v. Assad-line Nevada ruling, 9th Cir., 8/28/2026). | |||
| Alaska | Not authorized | Resolved from "unknown" to "not_authorized": no Alaska-specific cease-and-desist, lawsuit, or AG statement on Kalshi or similar CFTC-registered platforms was found, unlike Arizona, Washington, Montana, and Ohio, and no Alaska statute affirmatively authorizes these platforms either. A secondary industry tracker (fetched directly) reports Kalshi and Polymarket as operating in Alaska with no reported state action, consistent with not_authorized (gray-market operation without enforcement) rather than operational, per the Choosing-a-Status rule. Alaska sits in the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against Kalshi on CFTC-preemption grounds on Aug. 28, 2026 in KalshiEX v. Assad (Nevada), but no Alaska enforcement action has invoked that ruling as of this research. | |||
| Colorado | Not authorized | Colorado sits in the Tenth Circuit (which as of this file's as_of date has issued no Kalshi preemption ruling). No Colorado statute authorizes sports-event-contract trading, and the state has not issued a cease-and-desist or brought enforcement action (unlike Nevada, Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio and others); CFTC-registered platforms (Kalshi, Robinhood, Crypto.com, Polymarket) operate in Colorado as a tolerated gray market. Colorado's AG joined a multistate AG letter asserting the CFTC lacks authority to preempt state sports-wagering law, but that is a policy position, not litigation or an enforcement action, so this is recorded as not_authorized (gray market) rather than contested. Other circuits have split: 3rd Cir. (NJ, 2026-04-06) sided with Kalshi on preemption; 6th Cir. (KalshiEX v. Orgel/ Schuler, Nos. 26-5235 & 26-3196, decided 2026-09-25) and 9th Cir. (KalshiEX v. Assad, No. 25-7516, decided 2026-08-28) sided against Kalshi. | |||
| Delaware | Not authorized | Corrected from "unknown" to "not_authorized" per the national prediction-markets rule: no DE-specific regulator statement, cease-and-desist, or litigation regarding CFTC-registered sports event contracts (Kalshi, Polymarket, etc.) identified in this research pass. Contracts are available to Delaware residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption, with no DE regulator, AG, or court action against them as of this file's as_of date. Delaware sits in the 3rd Circuit (with NJ and PA); the 3rd Cir.'s April 6, 2026 ruling for Kalshi on CFTC preemption (in the NJ litigation) is binding circuit precedent in Delaware even though no DE-specific enforcement action or court case has been identified, which would weigh against any future DE cease-and-desist to Kalshi surviving a preemption challenge on the same facts. | |||
| District of Columbia | Not authorized | Corrected from "unknown" to "not_authorized" per the national prediction-markets rule: no DC-specific regulatory, legislative, or enforcement action regarding CFTC-registered event-contract platforms (e.g. Kalshi) was identified in this research, in contrast to several states that have issued cease-and-desist letters or sued. Kalshi and similar platforms are available to DC residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption, with no DC regulator, AG, or court action against them as of this file's as_of date; absent such action, the activity would fall under DC's general gambling-device prohibition (D.C. Code § 22-1704). DC sits in the D.C. Circuit (not one of the regional circuits where Kalshi litigation has been decided so far); no D.C. Circuit ruling on prediction-market preemption has been identified. The 3rd Cir. ruling for Kalshi (NJ, 2026-04-06) and the 6th Cir./9th Cir. rulings against Kalshi do not bind the District of Columbia. | |||
| Florida | Not authorized | No Florida Gaming Control Commission cease-and-desist letter, Attorney General lawsuit, or formal regulatory action naming a CFTC-registered event-contract platform (e.g., Kalshi, Polymarket) was identified in this research (a follow-up search for this audit found none either), in contrast to the FGCC's active enforcement against offshore sportsbooks (Bovada, MyBookie, BetUS) and sweepstakes casinos. The FGCC's executive director has stated publicly that the Seminole Tribe's Hard Rock Bet is the only lawful online sportsbook operator in Florida, a position that would extend to prediction markets offering sports-outcome contracts under Florida's compact-exclusivity structure and general gambling prohibition, even without a platform-specific enforcement action. Florida sits in the 11th Circuit, which has not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory as of Oct. 2026. | |||
| Georgia | Not authorized | No confirmed Georgia-specific enforcement action, lawsuit, or legislation addressing CFTC-registered event-contract platforms (e.g. Kalshi, Polymarket) was located in this research (a follow-up search for this audit found none either). No statute authorizes them, and Georgia's general gambling prohibition (O.C.G.A. §§ 16-12-21, 16-12-22) is used elsewhere in this file as the basis for not_authorized where no specific carve-out exists. Georgia sits in the 11th Circuit, which has not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory as of Oct. 2026. | |||
| Hawaii | Not authorized | CFTC-registered event contracts (Kalshi and others) are offered in Hawaii under claimed federal preemption; Hawaii has taken no enforcement action, filed no suit and enacted no authorization as of 2026-10-10. Under the national prediction-markets rule, the generic exclusion in HRS §712-1220 for "bona fide business transactions ... for the purchase or sale at a future date of securities or commodities" does not count as state authorization; whether event contracts fall within it is untested. HB 2198 (2026), which would classify prediction-market wagers as illegal gambling, cleared the House Commerce & Consumer Protection Committee in February 2026 but did not pass the Senate (see legislation.pending_summary). Hawaii is in the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against Kalshi on preemption in the Nevada case (KalshiEX v. Assad, 2026-08-28). | |||
| Idaho | Not authorized | Changed from "contested" to "not_authorized" on audit (2026-10-10): Idaho's AG joined a multistate 2025 letter asking the CFTC to recognize state jurisdiction over sports-related event contracts, but that is a policy position directed at a federal regulator, not a cease-and-desist, lawsuit, injunction, or ruling against the platforms, so it does not meet the national prediction-markets rule's bar for "contested." No Idaho-specific suit or C&D was found; Kalshi and similar CFTC-registered event-contract platforms are reportedly accessible to Idaho residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption with no confirmed Idaho enforcement action as of October 2026. Idaho sits in the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against Kalshi in KalshiEX LLC v. Assad (Nevada, Aug. 28, 2026) -- unlike the pro-Kalshi Third Circuit (NJ, Apr. 2026) -- though that ruling arose from Nevada's enforcement, not Idaho's, so it does not itself constitute Idaho state action. | |||
| Indiana | Not authorized | Changed from "contested" to "not_authorized" on audit (2026-10-10): no Indiana statute authorizes or licenses event-contract trading. As of a May 2026 Indiana Public Broadcasting report, Indiana Gaming Commission officials said prediction markets (e.g., Kalshi) fall under federal CFTC jurisdiction and the IGC has no oversight authority; the Commission has issued no cease-and-desist order. Indiana AG Todd Rokita joined a 44-state AG coalition letter asking the CFTC to disclaim exclusive jurisdiction over sports event contracts and leave regulation to the states, but that is a policy position directed at a federal regulator, not a cease-and-desist, lawsuit, injunction, or ruling against the platforms, so it does not meet the national rule's bar for "contested"; Indiana itself has taken no enforcement action, contrasting with Nevada, Illinois, Connecticut, New York, Ohio, and others that sent C&Ds. Contracts remain available to Indiana residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption as of this file's as_of date. | |||
| Kansas | Not authorized | Resolved on audit (2026-10-10), previously `unknown`. No Kansas statute authorizes prediction-market event contracts, so the activity is not authorized notwithstanding that platforms remain accessible to Kansas customers in a gray market. The Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission has taken no enforcement action: KRGC enforcement attorney James Bain told Sports Betting Dime (reported 2026-06-16) the commission is "not planning on sending cease-and-desist letters to prediction market platforms" at this time and is instead watching the outcome of the Kalshi litigation in Nevada and New Jersey before deciding. No Kansas AG opinion or court filing was identified. Kansas sits in the 10th Circuit, which has not ruled on CEA preemption of state gambling/sports-wagering law; compare 3rd Cir. (NJ, 2026-04-06, for Kalshi), 6th Cir. (OH/TN, 2026-09-25, against Kalshi), 9th Cir. (NV, 2026-08-28, against Kalshi). | |||
| Louisiana | Not authorized | Changed from "contested" to "not_authorized" on audit (2026-10-10): Louisiana officials were reported (December 2025) to have taken the position that sports-focused prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket constitute illegal betting under state law, amid escalating pressure on such platforms, but this research could not access or verify the underlying Gaming Control Board or Attorney General document, so no confirmed cease-and-desist, lawsuit, injunction, or ruling against a named platform exists. A follow-up search for this audit found no Louisiana Gaming Control Board or AG press release, docket, or cease-and-desist naming Kalshi/Polymarket, so the national prediction-markets rule's bar for "contested" (a concrete state action) is not met; the contracts remain available to Louisiana residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption as of this file's as_of date. Louisiana sits in the Fifth Circuit, which has not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory as of Oct. 2026 (the ruling circuits so far are the 3rd, for Kalshi in NJ, and the 6th/9th, against Kalshi). | |||
| Maine | Not authorized | Corrected from "unknown" to "not_authorized" per the national prediction-markets rule: no Maine AG action, statute, or litigation regarding CFTC-registered event-contract platforms (Kalshi, Polymarket) identified this session, despite a multi-state 2025-2026 wave of such actions elsewhere (MA, NY, NV, NJ, OH, and others). Contracts are available to Maine residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption, with no Maine regulator, AG, or court action against them as of this file's as_of date. Maine sits in the 1st Circuit (which also covers MA, NH, RI); no 1st Circuit ruling on prediction-market preemption has been identified, so no binding circuit precedent applies here. The 3rd Cir. ruling for Kalshi on preemption (NJ, decided 2026-04-06) and the 6th Cir. ruling against Kalshi (KalshiEX v. Orgel/Schuler, decided 2026-09-25) do not bind Maine. | |||
| Mississippi | Not authorized | Changed from "contested" to "not_authorized" on audit (2026-10-10): no Mississippi Gaming Commission cease-and-desist letter, lawsuit, or formal regulatory action naming a specific CFTC-registered event-contract platform (e.g., Kalshi, Polymarket) was identified. Mississippi has taken a position at the policy level instead: Attorney General Lynn Fitch joined a multistate AG coalition letter (May 4, 2026) urging federal regulators to return control of mobile sports betting to the states, framing prediction markets as "entertainment-based gambling rather than tools for financial risk management." This is advocacy aimed at a federal regulator, not a cease-and-desist, lawsuit, injunction, or ruling against the platforms, so it does not meet the national rule's bar for "contested"; contracts remain available to Mississippi residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption as of this file's as_of date. Mississippi sits in the Fifth Circuit, which has not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory as of Oct. 2026. | |||
| Nebraska | Not authorized | Corrected from "unknown" to "not_authorized" per the national prediction-markets rule: re-checked on audit (2026-10-10), a further search of the Nebraska Attorney General and Nebraska Racing & Gaming Commission (NRGC meeting agendas/minutes through mid-2026) still turned up no Nebraska-specific cease-and-desist letter, lawsuit, or other state action against Kalshi/Polymarket-style prediction markets. National coverage of the 2025-2026 Kalshi multistate litigation wave names Iowa, Arizona, Ohio, Tennessee, Minnesota, Michigan, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, and others, but not Nebraska. Contracts are available to Nebraska residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption, with no Nebraska regulator, AG, or court action against them as of this file's as_of date. Nebraska sits in the 8th Circuit, which has not ruled on CEA preemption of state gambling law. | |||
| New Hampshire | Not authorized | Corrected from "unknown" to "not_authorized" per the national prediction-markets rule: no NH AG action, statute, or litigation regarding CFTC-registered event-contract platforms (Kalshi, Polymarket, etc.) identified this session. Contracts are available to New Hampshire residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption, with no NH regulator, AG, or court action against them as of this file's as_of date; absent such action, the activity would fall under RSA 647:2's general gambling prohibition. New Hampshire sits in the 1st Circuit (with ME, MA, RI); no 1st Circuit ruling on prediction-market preemption has been identified, so no binding circuit precedent applies here. The 3rd Cir. ruling for Kalshi (NJ, 2026-04-06) and the 6th Cir./9th Cir. rulings against Kalshi do not bind New Hampshire. | |||
| North Carolina | Not authorized | Corrected from "unknown" to "not_authorized" per the national prediction-markets rule: no North Carolina-specific cease-and-desist, AG lawsuit, or regulator statement on Kalshi/Polymarket-style sports event contracts was found, despite an active 2025-2026 wave of such state actions elsewhere (Nevada, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, Montana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Massachusetts, Arizona). Contracts are available to North Carolina residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption, with no NC regulator, AG, or court action against them as of this file's as_of date; absent such action, the activity would fall under NC's general gambling statute (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ch. 14, Art. 37). North Carolina sits in the Fourth Circuit, which has not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory as of Oct. 2026; neither the Sixth Circuit's Sept. 25, 2026 ruling against Kalshi (KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler / KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel, Nos. 26-3196, 26-5235) nor the Third Circuit's pro-Kalshi ruling (NJ, 4/6/2026) binds North Carolina directly. | |||
| North Dakota | Not authorized | Corrected from "unknown" to "not_authorized" per the national prediction-markets rule: on a real search (re-checked on audit 2026-10-10), no North Dakota attorney general cease-and-desist letter, lawsuit, or Gaming Division/Racing Commission action against Kalshi or other prediction-market platforms was found in national or ND-specific coverage of the 2025-2026 multistate Kalshi litigation wave (which names NV, NJ, OH, TN, MN, MI, IA, MA, AZ, and others, but not ND). Contracts are available to North Dakota residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption, with no ND regulator, AG, or court action against them as of this file's as_of date. North Dakota sits in the 8th Circuit, which has not ruled on CEA preemption of state gambling law. | |||
| Oklahoma | Not authorized | Corrected from "unknown" to "not_authorized" per the national prediction-markets rule: no confirmed Oklahoma regulator or AG action against CFTC-registered event-contract platforms (e.g. Kalshi) was located; a secondary tracker describes Kalshi as operating in Oklahoma under CFTC registration "with no reported state challenge," unlike Arizona (criminal charges, March 2026), Ohio, Massachusetts, Nevada and others that have acted against it. A follow-up search for this audit (Oklahoma AG, Kalshi/Polymarket, tribal-compact angle) found no additional Oklahoma-specific source. Contracts are available to Oklahoma residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption, with no Oklahoma regulator, AG, or court action against them as of this file's as_of date. Oklahoma sits in the 10th Circuit, which has not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory as of Oct. 2026. | |||
| Oregon | Not authorized | Changed from 'contested' to 'not_authorized' on audit (2026-10-10): a federal class action filed in Oregon in February 2026 accuses Kalshi of running an 'illegal online gambling enterprise' in violation of Oregon's prohibition on non-state-run gambling, seeking double damages under the state's loss-recovery statute, but that suit is a private plaintiff action, not a state regulator, AG, legislature, or court ruling acting against the platforms, and no ruling has issued in it; no Oregon regulator cease-and-desist letter, AG lawsuit, or legislative action was identified in available sources, so the national prediction-markets rule's bar for 'contested' is not met. Contracts remain available to Oregon residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption as of this file's as_of date. Oregon sits in the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against Kalshi on CFTC-preemption grounds on Aug. 28, 2026 in KalshiEX v. Assad (Nevada); that ruling arose from Nevada's enforcement, not Oregon's own action, but is binding Ninth Circuit precedent. | |||
| Pennsylvania | Not authorized | Changed from "contested" to "not_authorized" on audit (2026-10-10): the PGCB has not issued a cease-and-desist to Kalshi/Polymarket, sued, or obtained any ruling against them; it has only lobbied Congress (Oct. 3, 2025 letter from Exec. Dir. Kevin O'Toole) to have the CFTC remove sports event contracts from federal oversight, which is advocacy aimed at a federal body, not a cease-and-desist, lawsuit, injunction, or ruling against the platforms. HB 2711, which would regulate (not ban) sports event contracts without PGCB licensing/taxation, remains pending and has not been enacted, so per the general status-choosing rule it does not change this from not_authorized. Pennsylvania sits in the 3rd Circuit (with NJ and DE); that circuit's April 6, 2026 ruling for Kalshi on CEA preemption (in the New Jersey litigation) is binding circuit precedent in Pennsylvania even though Pennsylvania has taken no enforcement action of its own, which would weigh against any future PA cease-and-desist to Kalshi surviving a preemption challenge on the same facts. Contracts remain available to Pennsylvania residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption as of this file's as_of date. | |||
| South Carolina | Not authorized | No South Carolina-specific enforcement action, lawsuit, or cease-and-desist against CFTC-registered event-contract platforms (Kalshi, Polymarket, etc.) was identified as of October 2026, unlike the multistate actions in Ohio, Tennessee, Connecticut and elsewhere. Sports-outcome event contracts would likely fall within the general prohibition on betting and bookmaking (§16-19-130) if challenged, but this is untested in South Carolina. South Carolina sits in the Fourth Circuit, which has not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory as of Oct. 2026. | |||
| South Dakota | Not authorized | Changed from "contested" to "not_authorized" on audit (2026-10-10): South Dakota's only identified basis was joining a ~37-state AG amicus brief backing Ohio's enforcement position and the 6th Circuit's Sept. 25, 2026 ruling against Kalshi in KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler (No. 26-3196, OH)/KalshiEX v. Orgel (No. 26-5235, TN) -- i.e., participation in and a ruling from another state's case, with no South Dakota cease-and-desist, lawsuit, or ruling of its own identified, which does not meet the national prediction-markets rule's bar for "contested." The Deadwood Gaming Association has publicly opposed prediction markets as unlicensed, untaxed competition with Deadwood's regulated sports wagering, but that is industry advocacy, not state action. Contracts remain available to South Dakota residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption as of this file's as_of date. South Dakota sits in the 8th Circuit, which has not itself ruled on CEA preemption of state gambling law; the 6th Circuit's Schuler/Orgel ruling does not bind South Dakota. | |||
| Texas | Not authorized | Changed from "contested" to "not_authorized" on audit (2026-10-10): Kalshi and similar CFTC-registered event-contract platforms offer sports and election contracts to Texas residents statewide on the theory that federal CFTC jurisdiction preempts state gambling law. No confirmed Texas Racing Commission or AG cease-and-desist, lawsuit, or ruling against Kalshi was found as of 2026, unlike Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Connecticut, and Tennessee, which have all sent C&D letters or sued, so the national prediction-markets rule's bar for "contested" is not met. Texas sits in the Fifth Circuit, which has not ruled on Kalshi's CFTC-preemption theory as of Oct. 2026. | |||
| Vermont | Not authorized | Corrected from "unknown" to "not_authorized" per the national prediction-markets rule: no Vermont AG action, statute, or litigation regarding CFTC-registered event-contract platforms (Kalshi, Polymarket) identified this session, despite a multi-state 2025-2026 wave of such actions elsewhere (MA, NY, NV, NJ, OH, and others). Contracts are available to Vermont residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption, with no Vermont regulator, AG, or court action against them as of this file's as_of date; absent such action, the activity would fall under the general gambling/lottery prohibitions of 13 V.S.A. ch. 51. Vermont sits in the 2nd Circuit (with NY and CT); no 2nd Circuit ruling on prediction-market preemption has been identified, so no binding circuit precedent applies here. The 3rd Cir. ruling for Kalshi (NJ, 2026-04-06) and the 6th Cir. ruling against Kalshi (decided 2026-09-25) do not bind Vermont. | |||
| Virginia | Not authorized | Corrected from "unknown" to "not_authorized" per the national prediction-markets rule: no Virginia cease-and-desist, AG lawsuit, or Lottery enforcement statement was found despite a wave of such state actions against Kalshi/Polymarket elsewhere (Nevada, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, Montana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Massachusetts, Arizona). One litigation tracker lists a private suit, Moran v. KalshiEX LLC et al., filed in Virginia with relief reportedly not granted, but this could not be confirmed against a court docket, so it is not treated as a state action. Contracts are available to Virginia residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption, with no Virginia regulator, AG, or court action against them as of this file's as_of date. Virginia sits in the Fourth Circuit (with MD, WV, NC, SC); that circuit has not yet ruled — Kalshi's appeal of its Maryland district-court loss (No. 25-1892) was argued May 7, 2026 and remained undecided as of this research pass, so no binding circuit precedent applies in Virginia yet. The 3rd Cir. ruling for Kalshi (NJ, 2026-04-06) and the 6th Cir./9th Cir. rulings against Kalshi do not bind Virginia. | |||
| West Virginia | Not authorized | Corrected from "unknown" to "not_authorized" per the national prediction-markets rule: no WV-specific regulator statement, cease-and-desist, or litigation regarding CFTC-registered sports event contracts identified in this research pass. Contracts are available to West Virginia residents statewide under claimed CFTC/federal preemption, with no WV regulator, AG, or court action against them as of this file's as_of date. West Virginia sits in the 4th Circuit (with MD, VA, NC, SC); the 4th Circuit has not yet ruled (Kalshi's appeal of its Maryland district-court loss, No. 25-1892, was argued May 7, 2026 and remained undecided as of this research pass), so no binding circuit precedent applies here yet. The 3rd Cir. ruling for Kalshi (NJ, 2026-04-06) and the 6th Cir./9th Cir. rulings against Kalshi do not bind West Virginia. | |||
| Wyoming | Not authorized | Secondary trackers report Kalshi operates in Wyoming (a state otherwise known for crypto/digital-asset-friendly law) with no reported cease-and-desist or enforcement action as of October 2026, unlike Montana, Nevada, Arizona, or Massachusetts. No state-specific prediction-markets legalization exists; Wyoming sits in the Tenth Circuit, which has not itself ruled on CFTC-preemption/Kalshi exchange-trading prediction markets as of Oct. 2026 (unlike the pro-Kalshi Third Circuit [NJ, Apr. 2026] or the anti-Kalshi Sixth Circuit [Sept. 2026] and Ninth Circuit [Nev., Aug. 2026]); platforms reportedly continue operating nationally pending further litigation. |