Ninth Circuit denies Kalshi rehearing in Nevada Assad case

Last updated: 6 Nov 2026, 19:53 CET: first published

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 4 November 2026 denied KalshiEX, LLC's petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad et al., No. 25-7516. The one-page order does not restate the August opinion. For what that earlier ruling held, this report follows Legal Sports Report and RG, which quote and summarise it.

What the 4 November order says

The order, filed 4 November 2026 (DktEntry 231.1), is captioned KalshiEX, LLC v. George Assad et al., No. 25-7516, on appeal from D.C. No. 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW in the District of Nevada, Las Vegas. The Nevada Resort Association appears as intervenor-defendant-appellee.

Before Circuit Judges R. Nelson, Bade and Lee, the panel "unanimously votes to DENY the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc." The order adds that the full court was advised of the en banc petition "and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc," citing Fed. R. App. P. 40. Both petitions are denied.

Why the August ruling matters

According to Legal Sports Report and RG, the same panel's August ruling is what the denial leaves in place for this case. RG dates that opinion to 28 August and says the panel held that Kalshi had not shown the Commodity Exchange Act likely preempts Nevada's gaming rules as applied to its sports event contracts, treating those contracts as sports bets rather than "swaps." Legal Sports Report quotes the August panel as writing: "The substance of the sports event contracts offered on Kalshi's DCM is sports gambling, regardless of whether Kalshi calls them swaps." Both publications say the effect is that Nevada regulators remain able to enforce state gambling law against those sports event contracts while the case continues.

That reading is limited to Nevada and to Kalshi's sports event contracts in this case. The rehearing order names only the parties here.

What happens next

Legal Sports Report and RG say that under Supreme Court Rule 13, a petition for a writ of certiorari is typically due within 90 days after rehearing is denied. RG also notes related petitions already before the justices, including New Jersey's request to review a Third Circuit ruling for Kalshi. Those are separate matters. No Supreme Court outcome on KalshiEX v. Assad is asserted here.

For other Kalshi and prediction-market enforcement stories, see Arkansas's lawsuits against Kalshi and VGW, Utah's charges against Kalshi's founders, the CFTC's lawsuit against Utah and Nevis's Prediction Market License.

If gambling stops being fun, the National Problem Gambling Helpline, 1-800-MY-RESET, is free and confidential (US).

Updates

• 6 Nov 2026: first published.