The Ninth Circuit has turned down a request from California tribes to have their appeal against Kalshi and Robinhood aligned with a Nevada prediction market case. This decision comes as litigation concerning prediction markets on the West Coast diverges into two distinct procedural paths.
Three tribes — Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, and Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians — sought to have their case heard by the same panel that is overseeing the consolidated Nevada case. They argued that both cases involve similar legal questions regarding the regulation of event-based contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).
The tribes contended that having both cases reviewed by the same panel would prevent redundant examination of complex CEA issues already presented in the Nevada case. However, they also noted that their appeal raises unique matters concerning tribal sovereignty and regulatory authority.
In their statement to the court, the tribes emphasized that aligning their appeal with the Nevada case would enhance judicial efficiency and conserve resources.
Despite these arguments, the Ninth Circuit denied the request on May 6, referencing the significant differences between the California appeal and the North American Derivatives Exchange’s lawsuit against the State of Nevada. The court’s brief order stated that the motion to reassign the appeal was denied due to these differences.
The tribes initiated their lawsuit against Kalshi and Robinhood in July 2025, claiming that the companies were conducting illegal sports betting on tribal lands, thus violating the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and threatening their sovereignty. In November 2025, a federal judge ruled in favor of the prediction market operators, determining that the CEA governs event contracts rather than tribal or state law, and that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) applies to Kalshi’s online activities.
In a related development, Kalshi has filed a motion to pause the Washington lawsuit while it appeals a federal court order that remanded the case back to state court. Kalshi had initially moved the complaint to federal court, asserting that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) holds exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts.
On May 5, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour dismissed Kalshi’s arguments for federal jurisdiction, stating that gambling regulation is under state authority. Following this, Kalshi has appealed the ruling and is seeking a stay during the appeal process. The company has expressed concerns that allowing the state court proceedings to continue could result in conflicting decisions between federal and state courts.