California tribes lose injunction battle over Kalshi prediction markets
A federal judge in Northern California has denied a request from three tribal governments seeking to block event contract firm Kalshi from offering its prediction market products on tribal lands.
The ruling marks a setback for tribes engaged in ongoing legal challenges over whether such contracts constitute unlawful gaming under federal law.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the US District Court for the Northern District of California on Monday denied a preliminary injunction filed by the Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, and Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians. The tribes sought to require Kalshi to geofence their lands and cease marketing that they alleged misrepresented the legality of sports betting.
The tribes argued that Kalshi’s sports event contracts qualified as Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and that its promotional materials violated the Lanham Act by suggesting “sports betting is now legal in all 50 states.”
Judge Corley dismissed both claims for injunction. On the advertising issue, she said Kalshi’s statement could reasonably be seen as an opinion rather than a provably false claim. On the IGRA matter, she determined that the tribes had not demonstrated a likelihood of success in showing Kalshi’s activities violated the act.
Central to Corley’s decision was the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which she found to be the governing federal statute for internet-based gaming activities that extend beyond tribal lands. She wrote that “the UIGEA, unlike IGRA, expressly addresses internet gaming that can be accessed in locations where such gaming is unlawful, including Indian lands.”
The ruling noted that UIGEA excludes from its definition of illegal gambling contracts regulated under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). Kalshi, as a designated contract market registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), offers its event contracts under that regulatory framework.
The tribes contended that UIGEA merely enforces existing laws and does not alter tribal-state compacts or gaming prohibitions. Corley acknowledged the argument but said the tribes had not identified any compact provision that UIGEA had altered or conflicted with.
While denying the injunction, Corley recognized the broader implications of Kalshi’s operations for tribal sovereignty and revenue. “Indeed, by self-certifying the legality of its event contracts in a way that insulates its activities from judicial review, Kalshi may have found a way around prohibitions on interstate gambling that were created with the Tribes’ best interest in mind,” she wrote.
Legal observers said the ruling followed Corley’s earlier skepticism toward the tribes’ claims. Andrew Kim, a partner at Goodwin Law, told InGame: “As for the IGRA claim, Judge Corley may have been sympathetic to the Tribes’ sovereign interests, but the jurisdictional question—whether sports event contracts are being offered in violation of a Tribal-State compact—was always going to be challenging for the Tribes.”
Kim added that the decision only concerned the injunction and that the broader case remains active, with motions to dismiss and other claims still pending.
In a statement, Kalshi said: “We welcome today’s decision denying the plaintiff tribes’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Kalshi’s nationwide, federally-regulated exchange offers all users a fair and transparent way to trade event contracts. Casinos located on tribal lands offer their customers a fundamentally different product.”
The decision follows similar tribal filings in Maryland, Nevada, and Massachusetts, and Kalshi continues to face related litigation in Wisconsin, where the Ho-Chunk Nation filed suit in August against Kalshi and Robinhood.
https://www.yogonet.com/international/news/2025/11/11/116253-california-tribes-lose-injunction-battle-over-kalshi-prediction-markets