A federal appeals court ruled that Nevada can enforce its gambling laws against Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts, rejecting Kalshi’s argument that those contracts are swaps governed only by federal commodities law. Ars Technica reports that the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed a district court order allowing Nevada to proceed against Kalshi’s sports contracts. The New York Times, according to a Techmeme summary, similarly reports that the appeals court found Kalshi’s sports event contracts are bets rather than swaps and are therefore subject to state gambling laws. That is the central legal issue for sports prediction markets: whether a federally regulated event contract can avoid state gaming rules when the underlying event is a sporting outcome. Kalshi argued that it is a designated contract market under the Commodity Exchange Act and that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has exclusive authority over its contracts. Ars reports that the Ninth Circuit rejected that framing for sports-event contracts, treating them as gambling even if Kalshi describes them as swaps. The case began after the Nevada Gaming Control Board sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter, according to Ars. Nevada officials framed the ruling as a rejection of the view that federal commodities law preempts state gaming laws for sports-event contracts offered by Kalshi and, in the regulator’s statement, by Crypto.com and Robinhood as well. The ruling does not settle the national question. Ars reports that the Ninth Circuit decision conflicts with an earlier Third Circuit decision involving New Jersey, where that court found sports wagers on prediction markets to be swaps. The Techmeme summary of the New York Times also says the outcome contradicted an earlier appeals court decision. That split matters because it leaves prediction-market operators facing different legal treatment depending on jurisdiction. In the Ninth Circuit, at least on the facts reported here, Nevada can apply its gambling framework to Kalshi’s sports-event contracts. In the Third Circuit’s contrary ruling, the same general category of sports prediction-market contract received the federal-swap treatment Kalshi has argued for. Ars also reports that the CFTC has been suing states that try to regulate or ban prediction markets, asserting that it alone has jurisdiction over them. That makes the Kalshi ruling more than a Nevada enforcement dispute: it is part of a larger boundary fight between federal commodities oversight and state gambling regulation. For operators, the decision narrows the path to offering sports prediction markets nationwide under a single federal theory. For states, it strengthens the argument that sports-event contracts are functionally sports betting and must comply with local gaming rules. The unresolved circuit split means the legal status of these markets remains active, not final. Who benefits: Nevada and other states seeking to apply gambling laws to sports-event contracts gain support from this ruling. State gaming regulators now have a prominent appellate decision backing their view that labeling a sports bet as a swap does not remove it from gambling oversight. Who's exposed: Kalshi is directly exposed to Nevada enforcement for sports-related event contracts. Ars reports that Nevada’s regulator also framed the ruling as relevant to sports-event contracts offered by Crypto.com and Robinhood, though the supplied material does not establish the procedural posture for those companies.