Prediction Markets in Ohio: Kalshi Lost Twice and Nothing Is Enjoined
Nothing is enjoined in Ohio in either direction. Kalshi asked a federal court to block Ohio's sports-gaming laws and lost twice: Chief Judge Sarah Morrison denied a preliminary injunction on March 9, 2026, and a Sixth Circuit panel denied an injunction pending appeal on April 24. Ohio's laws are enforceable now. The Sixth Circuit hears argument July 30, 2026.
CONTESTED
A denial of an injunction is not an injunction
This is the most frequently mangled fact about Ohio. Kalshi sued to stop the state from enforcing its sports-gaming laws and was refused, twice. No court has ordered Kalshi to stop offering anything, to geofence Ohio, or to pay anything. Equally, no court has told Ohio it cannot enforce.
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison denied the preliminary injunction on March 9, 2026 in a 21-page opinion. A Sixth Circuit motions panel denied an injunction pending appeal on April 24.
What the district court held on self-certification
The Ohio opinion contains the clearest judicial statement yet on a point routinely misreported across this industry. The court rejected the idea that a federal regulator’s silence amounts to approval: “Though a DCM can list any contract that it self-certifies, the certification does not carry the force of law. Said another way, the DCM can certify, but the CFTC can decertify.”
Kalshi self-certified its sports event contracts on January 22, 2025. Self-certification permits listing the next business day. It is not an approval, and no CFTC order approving these contracts exists.
The “largely in equipoise” quote, in context
The phrase appears in coverage as though it were an appellate holding. It comes from page 7 of a 16-page per curiam order denying an injunction pending appeal, marked “NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION.”
The same order declined to resolve the central question, stating that the panel was “content to assume (without deciding) that the event contracts qualify as swaps for purposes of this order.” The denial rested on the equities rather than the merits.
Scope: sports only
Every Ohio instrument reaches sports event contracts and nothing else. The Casino Control Commission’s March 2025 letter demanded Kalshi cease offering sports wagering products in the state. The district court used the term “sports-event contracts” throughout and framed the dispositive question as whether they are swaps. Weather, economic, and political contracts have never been at issue in Ohio.
What is pending against Kalshi
The Casino Control Commission has a $5 million penalty notice outstanding. Kalshi filed its own action in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on June 29, 2026 seeking to stop it. We could not verify the state case number.
Ohio S.B. 430 would amend the sports-gaming chapter to specify that certain actions constitute regulated sports gaming. Its primary sponsor is Senator William P. DeMora.
Thursday’s argument
The Sixth Circuit hears the Ohio appeal and the Tennessee appeal together on July 30, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Cincinnati, before Judges Clay, Gibbons and Bloomekatz. The June 17 order consolidated the two “for submission,” which pairs them for argument and decision without merging the cases.
Robinhood moved to have its Michigan appeal consolidated with these two. The court denied that motion on July 2, fixing Thursday as an Ohio and Tennessee proceeding.
Litigation
KalshiEX, LLC v. Schuler, No. 2:25-cv-01165 (S.D. Ohio), Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison. Complaint filed October 7, 2025. Preliminary injunction denied March 9, 2026. The case is not terminated below.
KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler, No. 26-3196 (6th Cir.), docketed March 11, 2026. The CFTC filed an amicus brief supporting Kalshi on May 12, 2026.
KalshiEX LLC v. Ohio Casino Control Commission, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, filed June 29, 2026. Case number unverified.
Primary sources
Questions
Is Kalshi blocked in Ohio?
No court has ordered Kalshi to stop. Kalshi sought an injunction against Ohio and was denied twice, which leaves Ohio's sports-gaming laws enforceable but imposes nothing on Kalshi by court order. The Casino Control Commission has a $5 million penalty notice pending.
Did the Sixth Circuit rule that Ohio wins?
No. The April 24, 2026 order denied an injunction pending appeal and expressly assumed the swap question without deciding it. It is marked not recommended for publication. The merits are argued July 30, 2026.
Does Ohio's position affect non-sports contracts?
Not on the current record. Every Ohio instrument, from the Commission's letter through the district court opinion, addresses sports event contracts specifically.
Did the CFTC approve Kalshi's sports contracts?
No. Kalshi self-certified them on January 22, 2025, which permits listing the next business day. The Ohio court addressed this directly, noting that certification does not carry the force of law and that the CFTC retains authority to decertify.