Where You Can Still Trade Sports Contracts: The State Map After the Ninth Circuit
Four states have shut it down, thirteen more are in active litigation, and thirty-three plus D.C. remain open. A working map as of September 2, 2026 — and the three states most likely to move next.
September 2, 2026 at 12:56 PM EDT
6 min read
The question we get more than any other right now is not about a line. It is "can I still use this in my state," and the honest answer changed again five days ago.
Below is where things actually stand as of September 2, 2026, after the Ninth Circuit's August 28 ruling that sports event contracts are not swaps and are therefore reachable by state gambling law. We have grouped states by what a resident can actually do today, not by what a press release says.
Two cautions before the map. First, this moves weekly — a single order can flip a state overnight, and several of the fourteen litigating states are one ruling away from closing. Second, "open" here means no state has successfully restricted sports event contracts, not that your state has blessed them. Nobody has blessed them. The federal framework that would is still a proposed rule.
Closed: four states
Nevada. The decisive one. The Ninth Circuit dissolved the injunction that had protected Kalshi from the Gaming Control Board, holding that sports event contracts are sports bets. Nevada can now require a gaming licence from anyone offering them. This is the state whose case created the precedent everyone else will cite.
Michigan. An Ingham County Circuit Court judge ordered a temporary shutdown. The attorney general's position is that the platforms operate as unlicensed sportsbooks and need gaming licences.
Utah. A federal judge ruled the state may apply its anti-gambling laws to prediction markets. Utah's governor and attorney general have both been openly hostile, and the AG's office has signalled that further enforcement is likely — which, in a state with no legal sports betting of any kind, is not surprising.
Washington. A state judge — King County Superior Court Judge John McHale — ruled for the state, following a July preliminary injunction finding Kalshi likely violates Washington's online gambling law. The August order requires an IP- and residency-based geofence and bars sports and other event contracts, while leaving commodities, climate, economics and finance markets alone. Kalshi's position is that King County Superior Court has no jurisdiction over a CFTC-regulated exchange at all.
That last point is why Washington matters more than its size suggests, and why the court's identity is worth getting right: this is a state trial court rejecting the federal-preemption defence outright, months before the Ninth Circuit reached the same conclusion by a different route. Legislators there have separately leaned on the marketing-to-young-adults argument.
Contested: thirteen more states in active litigation
These are the states where sports contracts may or may not be reachable today depending on which order is currently in force. If you live in one, assume your access is temporary.
Arizona is the sharpest case in the country. AG Kris Mayes filed twenty criminal counts against KalshiEx in March — the first criminal prosecution of a CFTC-registered prediction market anywhere. Judge Michael Liburdi enjoined her in April; the CFTC separately sued Arizona officials on April 2 seeking to block state enforcement. The Ninth Circuit ruling knocks the legs out from under Liburdi's reasoning, and Arizona is the most likely state to reopen.
Connecticut issued cease-and-desist letters and was named in the same CFTC suit as Arizona and Illinois.
Illinois takes the position that these are gambling products; also covered by the CFTC's April action.
Maryland argues sports contracts violate state gaming law. Kalshi's injunction request was denied and appealed to the Fourth Circuit, argued May 7. A decision there would create a third appellate data point.
Massachusetts won an injunction blocking sports contracts, which survived appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court. Closed in practice, still formally in litigation.
Minnesota enacted a law making prediction-market operation a felony effective August 1 — then a federal judge blocked enforcement on jurisdictional grounds. Notably, this is the fight Kalshi ran a public advocacy campaign against.
New York has the proposed ORACLE Act pending, a CFTC countersuit, and a private class action in the Southern District alleging illegal gambling. The private suit is the underrated one — it does not need a regulator to move.
Ohio levied a $5 million fine on Kalshi through the Casino Control Commission. The Sixth Circuit is weighing it with a CFTC amicus brief on file.
Rhode Island's attorney general sued on May 21 alleging unlicensed gaming; the CFTC countersued a week later. No merits ruling yet.
Tennessee claims unlicensed sportsbook operation, lost to a CFTC-obtained federal injunction, and has appealed to the Sixth Circuit seeking expedited treatment. Tennessee and Ohio arriving at the same circuit at the same time is why the Sixth is the next one to watch.
Texas is investigating, with committee recommendations not expected until 2027. Platforms remain live.
Wisconsin's attorney general filed three separate suits and drew a CFTC countersuit. The Ho-Chunk Nation also filed its own federal action — the clearest example of tribal gaming interests litigating directly rather than through a state.
Kentucky sued Kalshi, Polymarket, and the distribution partners — Coinbase, Robinhood and Webull. Suing the distributors rather than only the exchanges is the tactical innovation other AGs are most likely to copy, because it reaches the apps where most retail volume actually originates.
Open: thirty-three states and D.C.
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming — plus the District of Columbia — currently permit sports prediction-market trading with no state restriction in force.
One housekeeping note, because we would rather show our arithmetic than inherit someone else's. Several published trackers put the open count at twenty-seven while listing thirty-plus states. Four states are closed and thirteen are contested; that leaves thirty-three and D.C., and that is the number we use.
Two asterisks worth understanding. New Jersey is open because the Third Circuit enjoined its regulators — it is open by federal court order over the state's objection, which is the opposite of consent. And California, the largest market on that list, has litigation running while access remains live; a change there would be the single biggest volume event in the sector.
The three most likely to move next
Arizona, for the reasons above. The injunction is the only thing standing between Mayes and a live criminal case, and it rests on reasoning the circuit just rejected.
Oregon and Idaho. Neither has acted, and both sit inside the Ninth Circuit, where the ruling is now binding precedent. Oregon has a state-run sports lottery product and a direct revenue interest; Idaho has essentially no legal sports betting and a legislature with no reason to protect the category. A cease-and-desist from either takes one letter.
California. Not because a ruling is imminent, but because the tribal gaming coalition there is the most organised in the country and has the clearest financial stake. If it decides to move, it will not be a quiet process.
What a resident should actually do
If you are in a closed state, your positions do not disappear — these are CFTC-registered venues with segregated customer funds and wind-down obligations — but you should expect to be closed out at a mark you did not pick, and you should not open new positions you cannot afford to see closed early.
If you are in a contested state, treat your access as a lease, not a deed. Keep your balance sized to what you would be comfortable having returned to you at an inconvenient moment, and do not build a strategy that requires a specific venue to exist in ninety days.
If you are in an open state, the useful discipline is simply to check where the price actually is. Exchange pricing and licensed-sportsbook pricing diverge more than most people assume, particularly on futures and long-dated markets, and the gap is where the value lives — regardless of which venue survives the litigation.
Watch
Correction, September 2, 2026: an earlier version of this guide described the Washington ruling against Kalshi as coming from a federal judge. It was a state court — King County Superior Court, Judge John McHale. The distinction matters to this article's argument, because a state trial court rejecting Kalshi's federal-preemption defence is a stronger signal than a federal one doing so.