A U.S. court rejected Kalshi's request for a temporary injunction, stating that Congress had no intention of excluding the application of state gambling laws.

U.S. District Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the District of Ohio ruled that historical records do not show Congress intended to supersede state sports betting regulations, and therefore dismissed the preliminary injunction application filed by prediction market platform Kalshi. Kalshi had previously requested the court to prevent Ohio regulators from enforcing local betting laws. The platform operates a prediction market that allows users to bet on the outcome of specific events, including sporting events. Last year, the Ohio Casino Control Commission accused Kalshi of engaging in illegal sports betting activities in the state. The judge stated in the ruling that there was no evidence that Congress intended to supersede state regulatory authority over sports betting when drafting the relevant laws. Therefore, Kalshi cannot currently prevent state regulators from continuing enforcement. This case is part of a legal dispute between Kalshi and several state regulators. The core of the dispute is whether the event contracts offered by the platform should be considered financial products regulated by federal derivatives laws or sports betting governed by state betting regulations. This case is considered an important test case for the legality of prediction markets, and its ruling could affect the future regulatory prospects of other prediction market platforms in the United States, including Polymarket.