Kalshi is moving forward with its lawsuits against Ohio and Tennessee officials, but it is still reserving the opportunity to make its plea to the Supreme Court of the United States. Kalshi filed a request for the full US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a decision from a three-member panel of judges.
The court is not bound to grant the en banc petition, and if it declines, that may lead to Kalshi’s further appeal. However, that may be a moot point when that time comes.
Kalshi asks Sixth Circuit to review decision on preliminary injunctions
Kalshi has asked for a rehearing of the court’s decision in Kalshi v. Schuler and Kalshi v. Orgel on Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2026. An en banc hearing is when all the judges at a court review a ruling from a smaller contingent of their number.
The Sixth Circuit panel issued its ruling in late September. That decision affirmed the decision to not grant Kalshi a requested preliminary injunction against gambling regulators and law enforcement in Ohio.
The same opinion also overturned a preliminary injunction that was in place against those authorities in Tennessee as well. Both states are within the Sixth Circuit’s jurisdiction and both cases involved identical legal questions, so the panel consolidated the cases.
Kalshi’s request for a new hearing lies in its interpretation of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). Its brief argues that the panel misinterpreted the CEA on two points.
Kalshi says panel made errors in application of federal laws
Kalshi’s plea for a new hearing rests on establishing that the panel erred in its reading of the CEA in regard to whether federal securities laws preempt state gambling laws and whether sports event contracts qualify as swaps. Kalshi holds that such preemption exists and that those contracts do qualify as swaps.
“The panel held that the CEA’s grant of ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ allows the application of ‘ancillary’ state laws,” counsel for Kalshi wrote. “That is plainly incorrect.”
“The panel plucked out one type of event—sports—and concluded categorically that those events can never underlie swaps,” the brief continues. “But Congress did not define ‘swap’ by reference to the subject matter of the underlying event, and there is no statutory language categorically excluding the types of events that may underlie a swap.”
The Sixth Circuit will decide if those arguments hold enough water to merit a new hearing. Grants of such petitions are rare, but another court may intervene in the situation and make Kalshi’s en banc request meaningless.
SCOTUS appeal could put Sixth Circuit proceedings on hold
Kalshi may not have yet formally petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to review any unfavorable decisions, but other parties have filed pleas with SCOTUS. Those parties include Coinbase, Robinhood, and state officials in New Jersey.
Multiple parties, including the National Football League and attorneys general from 39 states, have supported the New Jersey authorities in their SCOTUS request. SCOTUS has not yet announced whether it will review either that case or the ruling that Coinbase and Robinhood have appealed out of the Ninth Circuit.
If SCOTUS does pick either case to review, it will likely weigh in on the questions of preemption and swaps definition that Kalshi has raised. As a result, the Sixth Circuit’s further word on the matters could only carry weight if SCOTUS denies the petitions.
Kalshi is preparing for that possibility with its en banc request. Kalshi is also biding its time before it makes its own move at SCOTUS.
