On 18 May 2026, Nevada's First Judicial District Court entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting Kalshi from offering or facilitating contracts on sports-, election- or entertainment-related events in the state, according to the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Kalshi argues that its contracts are federally regulated under the Commodity Exchange Act and that state gaming law does not reach them; in Nevada, that argument has not stopped the state.
If you are trying to understand why Kalshi offers different contracts depending on where you are, Nevada is one of the clearest cases: a state court order, an agreement with the state's regulator, and a federal appeals ruling, all on the record.
Deposit $20, get $50 to trade
Welcome bonus on the world's largest prediction market.
18+ · New users only · Availability and terms vary by region · Trading involves risk of loss · BeGambleAware.org
The short answer, before the detail
Kalshi's sports, election and entertainment contracts are not available to users in Nevada. That is the practical reality following the May 2026 preliminary injunction and the stipulation Kalshi later signed with the Nevada Gaming Control Board. The sources do not state whether other contract types remain available in Nevada.
The legal position may shift. Courts rule, companies appeal, settlements get renegotiated. Nothing here is legal advice, and anyone with a direct financial stake in how this plays out should speak to a lawyer licensed in Nevada.
How the injunction happened
On 18 May 2026, the First Judicial District Court issued the preliminary injunction. The order prohibited Kalshi from offering or facilitating contracts on sports-, election- or entertainment-related events in Nevada while the underlying case proceeded. A preliminary injunction is not a final judgment; it is a court saying the state is likely enough to win, and the harm from waiting is severe enough, that the status quo has to shift now rather than at the end of a trial.
Kalshi did not immediately pull everything. The Gaming Control Board moved to hold the company in contempt after its investigators were able to enter prohibited contracts from inside the state. Rather than be held in contempt, Kalshi agreed to implement a multi-source geofencing solution from a third-party provider. The agreement was filed with the court on 23 July 2026, and the Board's release says Kalshi must complete the geofencing by 12 August 2026 or pay a penalty of $120,000 per day until it does. That date is why our own records log Nevada as blocked for sports, elections and entertainment from 12 August 2026 onwards.
The deadline was not the end of it. The Nevada Independent reported on 15 August 2026 that the Board had told the court in a filing that Kalshi missed the 12 August deadline, after state investigators were able to buy contracts in the banned categories from Nevada on mobile phones, and that the Board asked for fines of $120,000 a day. Kalshi's lawyers said the investigators had misrepresented their residence.
The Ninth Circuit weighs in
Separately, Kalshi brought its own federal case against the Nevada Gaming Control Board, arguing that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts Nevada's gaming law as applied to its contracts.
On 28 August 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in KalshiEX v. Assad, No. 25-7516. The court affirmed in part and remanded in part. It upheld the district court's order dissolving the preliminary injunction Kalshi had won as to sports event contracts, holding that Kalshi had not shown a likelihood that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts Nevada gaming law as applied to them. Because the district court had not analysed Kalshi's election contracts, the Ninth Circuit sent that question back to the district court to consider. That is a ruling at the preliminary stage, not a final decision on the merits of preemption, and the position may change.
Courts have reached different conclusions on the question. The Ninth Circuit's own opinion notes that, while the Nevada appeal was pending, the Third Circuit affirmed a New Jersey federal court's order granting Kalshi a preliminary injunction there.
What this means for Nevada traders in practice
If you are physically in Nevada and you open the Kalshi app, the sports, election and entertainment contracts that drew the Gaming Control Board's attention are not available to you. The agreement with the Board requires Kalshi to keep users within Nevada out of those contracts through multi-source geofencing.
If you move state, the picture changes. California and Texas each have their own story, and we have walked through both: our guide to Kalshi's legal position in California and the Kalshi explainer for Texas show how the same company runs into very different state responses depending on which gaming regulator is doing the asking.
Where this sits in the broader map
Kalshi's position differs from state to state, and it can change. For a wider frame on that question, our guide to Kalshi's legality across all fifty states walks through why CFTC regulation does not settle the question the way the company has argued it should.
It is also worth sitting with what the Nevada ruling does and does not do. It does not shut Kalshi down nationally. It does not resolve the preemption question on the merits. What it does is leave Nevada's enforcement in place at the preliminary stage.
How we track this
iPredicta maintains a state-by-state availability file for Kalshi because the legal picture changes often enough that a reader cannot be expected to keep up. Our Nevada entry is logged as blocked for sports, election and entertainment contracts from 12 August 2026, keyed to the stipulation deadline. When a court rules or a regulator acts, we update that record, and this article states the date it was last checked.
Frequently asked questions
Can I use Kalshi in Nevada right now?
You cannot use Kalshi in Nevada for sports, election or entertainment contracts, because a court order and a stipulation with the Nevada Gaming Control Board prohibit it. The preliminary injunction from 18 May 2026 bars Kalshi from offering those categories in the state. The stipulation filed on 23 July 2026 required Kalshi to implement multi-source geofencing by 12 August 2026 or face a $120,000-per-day penalty. The company has argued its federal regulation protects it, but the Ninth Circuit found Kalshi had not shown it was likely to win that argument. The practical result is a geofence.
What did the Ninth Circuit actually decide?
The Ninth Circuit held that Kalshi had not shown a likelihood of winning its argument that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts Nevada gaming law as applied to its sports event contracts. The ruling came in KalshiEX v. Assad, No. 25-7516, on 28 August 2026. The court affirmed in part, as to sports event contracts, and remanded in part, sending the question of Kalshi's election contracts back to the district court. In plainer terms, the court declined to find that federal commodities regulation takes precedence over Nevada's gaming authority at the preliminary stage. That matters because federal preemption is the central legal theory Kalshi uses to argue states cannot regulate its contracts as gambling. The ruling is preliminary, not a final judgment on the merits, and the position may change on further appeal. In Nevada, the state court's injunction remains in place.
Is this just about sports, or does it cover other contracts?
The preliminary injunction and the stipulation specifically name sports, election and entertainment contracts, which are the three categories Nevada's Gaming Control Board moved against. The court order prohibits Kalshi from offering or facilitating those contracts in the state. Our own records log Nevada as blocked across those three categories from 12 August 2026 onwards, which is the stipulation's geofencing deadline. For anything outside sports, elections and entertainment, check Kalshi's own availability for your location.
Could the position change?
Yes. The May 2026 injunction is preliminary, meaning it reflects the court's view of the likely outcome rather than a final judgment after a full trial. The Ninth Circuit ruling is also at a preliminary stage of the preemption question. Either could be revisited on further appeal, a full trial, or a settlement between Kalshi and the state. The Third Circuit, for example, affirmed a preliminary injunction for Kalshi against New Jersey. If you have a direct financial interest in how Nevada's position evolves, treat the current state as a snapshot and speak to a lawyer licensed in the state. This article is not legal advice.