A federal judge has denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Kalshi against Nevada gaming regulators, allowing the legal battle to move forward.
On 3 June, US District Judge Andrew Gordon rejected multiple arguments raised by the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB), the Nevada Gaming Commission (NGC), and Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford in their effort to terminate the litigation.
The court found that Kalshi had adequately stated a legal claim, rejecting the assertion that the suit was invalid as to the named state agencies and their officials.
As a result, the court rejected arguments that the suit should be barred due to Eleventh Amendment immunity, insufficient identification of the State of Nevada as a defendant, or alleged procedural missteps in serving legal documents.
Judge Gordon’s decision preserves a preliminary injunction currently in effect, which blocks Nevada authorities from taking enforcement actions against Kalshi while the case progresses.
In its lawsuit against the defendants, Kalshi argues that its operations fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction, governed by the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), and should not be subject to Nevada’s gaming laws.
The company contends that the CEA preempts state regulation in this domain, exempting it from the licensing and compliance obligations that govern Nevada sportsbooks.
Nevada regulators, however, maintain that Kalshi’s contracts closely resemble traditional sports bets and are thus subject to the state’s comprehensive gambling oversight.
Nevada Resort Association joins the fight
As the case moves forward, it has attracted significant attention from Nevada’s powerful resort and gaming interests.
Alongside his ruling on the motion to dismiss, Judge Gordon has also granted a motion by the Nevada Resort Association (NRA) to intervene in the lawsuit.
The NRA, which represents many of the state’s largest casino-resort operators, aims to defend Nevada’s regulatory framework and safeguard the integrity of its multi-billion-dollar gambling industry.
In its filing, the association argued that allowing Kalshi to operate without complying with state gaming laws would create an uneven playing field, threatening both economic stability and regulatory consistency.
In particular, the NRA highlighted that licensed Nevada sportsbooks processed more than $7.8bn in sports wagers during 2024 alone.
The association warned that if companies like Kalshi were permitted to offer similar betting opportunities without adhering to Nevada’s betting requirements, it could result in significant disruption to the state’s gambling ecosystem.
In granting the NRA’s motion to intervene, Judge Gordon found that the resort industry has a strong enough interest in the outcome of the case to warrant intervention.
The case raises fundamental questions about the intersection of federal commodities regulation and state gambling laws.
The outcome of the legal showdown could have wide-ranging implications — not only for Nevada, but potentially for the future of event-based wagering across the US.