Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight
Ruling states Kalshi's sports contracts are gambling, not federally regulated swaps.
AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made
Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight
Photograph: CBS News (embedded from source)
What this story says
- A federal appeals court rejected Kalshi's attempt to prevent Nevada from regulating its prediction markets.
- The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Kalshi's prediction market contracts for sporting events are sports bets, not federally regulated swaps.
- The court found that federal commodity trading law does not prevent Nevada from applying its gambling regulations to Kalshi's sports event contracts.
- The ruling is part of a broader legal battle involving about 20 states over the regulation of prediction markets.
Who covered it
Percentages are shares of the 9 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. Coverage measured .
Trust
60/100
Craft
70/100
Hype
20/100
9 sources · methodology
Thin on the right so far
None of the 9 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated right.
This story is still being watched, so it is a count and not yet a finding. Coverage keeps arriving for hours after an event, and a side that has published nothing this morning may publish by tonight. If it is still true when we stop checking, we will say so plainly.
A federal appeals court has ruled that Nevada can regulate Kalshi's prediction markets, rejecting the company's efforts to block state oversight. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Kalshi's contracts based on sporting events are sports bets and not federally regulated financial swaps. This decision represents a significant victory for states asserting their authority over prediction market platforms.
Conflicting rulings on federal preemption
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that Kalshi failed to demonstrate that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts Nevada's gambling laws. In its written opinion, the court noted that the substance of the contracts offered on Kalshi's platform is sports gambling, irrespective of how the company labels them. This ruling contrasts with a previous decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had concluded that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has exclusive authority over sports-related event contracts on Kalshi. The 9th Circuit panel sent the question of Kalshi's trading on election contracts back to a lower court for further consideration.
What the coverage left out
None of the left- or centre-rated reports mentioned the specific cost estimate for the prediction market contracts, if any were provided. The full reports from CBS News and Associated Press News did not include details on the financial value of the contracts or the potential economic impact of the ruling.
Still developing. We have re-checked which outlets are covering this 1 time, most recently on 28 Aug 2026, 22:15, and will add the sides that appear.
How each side covered it
Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.
Left
3 rated outlets
- Left-rated reports highlighted the ruling as a win for states and the rule of law. Associated Press News reported that the appeals court panel refused to let Kalshi restart trading on sports and elections events in Nevada while it fights the state's effort to shut it down. The Nevada attorney general's office called the ruling a "major victory for Nevada and our longstanding authority to regulate gaming in our state." The Seattle Times and The Hamilton Spectator also noted that the court panel refused to let Kalshi restart trading on elections and sporting events. Associated Press News quoted the 9th Circuit panel stating that "sports betting does not become something else simply because a company calls it an ‘event contract.’"
Centre
6 rated outlets
- Centre-rated reports focused on the court's decision that Kalshi's prediction market contracts are sports bets, not federally regulated swaps. CBS News reported that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Kalshi failed to show that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts Nevada gambling laws. The court stated that Kalshi's prediction market contracts are sports bets, not federally regulated swaps. CBS News quoted one of the judges, Ryan Nelson, who wrote, "The substance of the sports event contracts offered on Kalshi's DCM is sports gambling, regardless of whether Kalshi calls them swaps." WBAL, Ottumwa Courier, Devdiscourse, and Winnipeg Free Press also reported that the federal appeals court panel refused to let Kalshi restart trading on sports and elections events in Nevada. The Nevada Independent noted that the 9th Circuit panel disagreed "with Kalshi's overly broad reading" that the Commodity Exchange Act allows it to offer sports event contracts.
Right
0 rated outlets
No outlet rated right has run this story so far. We are still checking, and will say plainly if that does not change.
Questions about this coverage
- How did the left and right cover Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight?
- Of the 9 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 33% are rated left, 67% are rated centre, 0% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
- Is Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight left or right?
- Too few of the outlets on this story carry a published leaning rating to say. 9 of them do, and this site does not characterise a field under 12: at that size one newsroom filing moves the share by ten points. The percentages above are the count as it stands.
- Is the coverage of Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight biased?
- Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight is one event reported by 9 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
- Which side is not reporting Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight?
- When we first saw this story, outlets rated right had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
- Which outlets covered Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight?
- 9 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
- What did the appeals court rule regarding Kalshi and Nevada?
- A federal appeals court ruled that Nevada can regulate Kalshi's prediction markets. The court determined that Kalshi's contracts based on sporting events are sports bets and not federally regulated financial swaps, rejecting Kalshi's argument that federal law preempts state gambling regulations.
- Why is this ruling significant for states?
- The ruling is significant because it supports states' authority to regulate prediction markets under their own gambling laws. It is part of a larger legal conflict involving approximately 20 states that are litigating over who has regulatory oversight of these platforms.
- Did all courts rule the same way on this issue?
- No, the rulings have differed. While the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Nevada, a previous decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the CFTC has exclusive control over sports-related event contracts on Kalshi, reaching a different conclusion on federal preemption.
Read it at the source
9 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.
Left
3- Federal appeals court panel gives Nevada a win in its fight to regulate prediction market Kalshi (opens The Seattle Times in a new tab)
The Seattle Times — is The Seattle Times biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Federal appeals court panel gives Nevada a win in its fight to regulate prediction market Kalshi (opens Associated Press News in a new tab)
Associated Press News — is Associated Press News biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Federal appeals court panel gives Nevada a win in its fight to regulate prediction market Kalshi (opens The Hamilton Spectator in a new tab)
The Hamilton Spectator — is The Hamilton Spectator biased? Our profile of this outlet
Centre
6- Court hands U.S. states a win in fight over who regulates prediction markets (opens CBS News in a new tab)
- Federal appeals court panel gives Nevada a win in its fight to regulat (opens WBAL in a new tab)
- Federal appeals court panel gives Nevada a win in its fight to regulate prediction market Kalshi (opens Ottumwa Courier in a new tab)
Ottumwa Courier — is Ottumwa Courier biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Kalshi cannot block Nevada oversight of sports prediction markets, US appeals court rules (opens Devdiscourse in a new tab)
Devdiscourse — is Devdiscourse biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Federal appeals court panel gives Nevada a win in its fight to regulate prediction market Kalshi (opens Winnipeg Free Press in a new tab)
Winnipeg Free Press — is Winnipeg Free Press biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Federal appeals court allows Nevada to ban Kalshi and other prediction markets - The Nevada Independent (opens Nevada Independent in a new tab)
Nevada Independent — is Nevada Independent biased? Our profile of this outlet
Right
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
Not rated
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
How did this read?
About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.
