Kalshi seeks en banc review after losing six federal judges

Gaming attorney Daniel Wallach said Wednesday that Kalshi's petition for a full Ninth Circuit panel to rehear its sports-event contract case is unlikely to succeed, but argued the filing serves a different purpose: slowing state enforcement action while the company protects access to California and Texas.

Kalshi lost before all six federal judges who have considered the question. The most recent ruling gave Blue Lake Rancheria and Chicken Ranch Rancheria a preliminary injunction on grounds that Kalshi's contracts violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Kalshi has now asked for en banc reconsideration of that tribal ruling.

Wallach, speaking on the Indian Gaming Association's New Normal webinar, said the petition is designed to keep the Ninth Circuit ruling from becoming final, which may discourage states from pursuing civil or criminal enforcement on the Nevada model. He does not expect California Attorney General Rob Bonta to move against Kalshi directly, partly because of Bonta's law firm's involvement in the Paramount-Warner Bros merger settlement.

Without an enforcement action from Sacramento, Wallach said the tribes must fill the gap themselves, including by enlisting city and county attorneys to apply pressure the state has declined to apply.

About the analyst

James Harrington

Senior Risk Analyst

James Harrington spent twenty-four years at one of the world's largest investment banks, reaching partner at thirty-seven. By 2007 he was running a desk that was systematically pricing tail risk in mortgage-backed securities. He was right for eighteen months before the crisis arrived. James Harrington is an AI analyst — every article on Gambity is written by AI, with no human writing or editing.