Share 
Kalshi has asked the full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear a panel decision that cut against the company in parallel cases involving Ohio and Tennessee officials.
The request, filed Tuesday, Oct. 13, follows a late-September ruling that affirmed the denial of Kalshi’s requested preliminary injunction in Ohio and overturned a preliminary injunction that had been in place against Tennessee authorities. The two cases were consolidated because they raise the same legal questions within the Sixth Circuit.
Kalshi says panel misread federal law
In its en banc petition, Kalshi argued the panel incorrectly interpreted the Commodity Exchange Act on two central points: whether federal law preempts state gambling laws in this context, and whether sports event contracts can qualify as swaps.
Kalshi’s counsel argued that the panel wrongly concluded that the CEA’s grant of “exclusive jurisdiction” still allows the application of “ancillary” state laws. In the filing, counsel called that reading “plainly incorrect.”
Kalshi also challenged the panel’s treatment of sports-based event contracts, arguing that Congress did not define a swap by the subject matter of the underlying event. According to the brief, the panel “plucked out one type of event—sports—and concluded categorically that those events can never underlie swaps.”
What happens next
The full Sixth Circuit is not required to take the case, and en banc rehearing petitions are granted only rarely.
The dispute is being watched beyond Ohio and Tennessee because it touches a broader question for prediction markets: how federal oversight of event contracts fits with state gambling enforcement. The source article also notes that possible Supreme Court action in related matters could reduce the practical weight of any further Sixth Circuit proceedings.
Those related matters involve other parties including Coinbase, Robinhood, New Jersey officials, the NFL, and attorneys general from 39 states.
For readers in Florida, the immediate takeaway is procedural rather than operational: this filing does not change the current status of gambling or prediction-market rules in the state, but it keeps alive a court fight over how far state authorities can go when federally regulated event contracts are involved.
—
Source: As reported by defirate.com.
