Kalshi Loses in Washington Again and Asks the Supreme Court for 30 More Days

A King County judge has refused to revisit the injunction that keeps Kalshi's sports, election and entertainment contracts out of Washington, rejecting the argument that rivals are still operating there. In the same week Kalshi asked for 30 more days on New Jersey's Supreme Court petition and Montana agreed to stand down until the Ninth Circuit rules en banc.

• Judge John McHale of King County Superior Court denied Kalshi's motion on 16 September to reconsider the amended preliminary injunction that bars it from offering sports, elections, politics, entertainment, culture, technology, science and mention contracts in Washington, according to gaming attorney Daniel Wallach and The PM Pulse
• Kalshi had argued that Washington was allowing other prediction markets to operate while its Ninth Circuit appeal runs; the injunction, which Kalshi geofenced to comply with under a $120,000-a-day threat, stays in place
• On 18 September Neal Katyal of Milbank filed a letter at the Supreme Court seeking a 30-day extension, to 9 November, for Kalshi's brief opposing New Jersey's petition in Flaherty v. KalshiEX, No. 26-299, which is currently due 8 October; the docket does not yet show it granted
• Nevada's responses to Robinhood's and Crypto.com's petitions remain due on 14 and 15 October, which would put New Jersey's case behind the Nevada petitions in the court's sequencing
• Kalshi and Montana jointly dismissed Kalshi's federal suit on 17 September, with Montana agreeing not to enforce against Kalshi's contracts while the Ninth Circuit en banc petition is pending and to give 30 days' notice before any enforcement

The Injunction Stands, the Clock Slows, and One State Stands Down

Three procedural developments in a week have shifted the calendar on Kalshi's litigation without changing the map. The first is in Washington, where Judge John McHale of the King County Superior Court on Tuesday denied Kalshi's motion for reconsideration of the amended preliminary injunction in State of Washington v. KalshiEX, according to Daniel Wallach and The PM Pulse newsletter. The injunction bars Kalshi from offering sports, election, politics, entertainment, culture, technology, science and mention contracts in the state, and Kalshi complied by geofencing in August under a threat of $120,000 a day.

Kalshi's argument for reconsideration was unequal treatment: that Washington was letting other prediction markets continue to operate while Kalshi's appeal in the Ninth Circuit runs. The judge was not persuaded, and the ban stays in place while the appeal continues. Washington is the state with the broadest injunction against the company, reaching well beyond sports into the election contracts that election officials are now writing into their own rules.

The second is at the Supreme Court. On Thursday 18 September Neal Katyal of Milbank, acting for KalshiEX, filed a Rule 30.4 letter requesting a 30-day extension, to 9 November, for Kalshi's brief in opposition to New Jersey's petition in Flaherty v. KalshiEX, No. 26-299. The brief is currently due on 8 October. New Jersey filed on 2 September after the Third Circuit held in April that Kalshi's sports contracts are swaps and that federal commodities law pre-empts the state's gambling rules, the opposite of the Ninth Circuit's conclusion in Nevada's case in August. The public docket shows the extension as submitted, not granted. Nevada's responses to the separate petitions from Robinhood, No. 26-338, and Crypto.com and Nadex, No. 26-344, remain due on 14 and 15 October.

The third is in Montana. On Wednesday 17 September Kalshi and Montana officials jointly dismissed Kalshi's federal suit, with the state agreeing not to enforce against Kalshi's designated contract market event contracts while Kalshi's en banc petition in the Nevada case is pending, and to give 30 days' written notice before any enforcement, according to the joint stipulation reported by The PM Pulse. Judge Donald Molloy had denied Kalshi's preliminary injunction without prejudice on 27 August. Separately, the Eighth Circuit has set a briefing schedule in Kalshi's appeal against Iowa's refusal of an injunction, with Kalshi's opening brief due on 6 November.

The Unequal-Treatment Argument Failed Because It Was an Argument About Enforcement, Not Law

Kalshi's point in Washington was true and irrelevant. Other exchanges are operating in the state, the attorney general has not moved against all of them, and a company under injunction watches its competitors take its customers. But a preliminary injunction is a finding about the likelihood that the defendant is breaking the law, not a guarantee that everyone else will be pursued at the same speed, and a state court is not obliged to lift a restraint because it has been selective. The practical effect is that Washington becomes the clearest test of what enforcement against one operator does when its rivals stay: if the customers move to Polymarket, Novig and the others rather than to Washington's tribal-only retail sportsbooks, Kalshi's loss is the exchanges' gain and the state's point is unproven.

A November Deadline Puts New Jersey's Case Behind Nevada's

An extension to 9 November is routine, and it would be unusual for the court to refuse it. Its consequence is sequencing. The Nevada petitions from Robinhood and Crypto.com, with responses due in mid-October, would reach the justices' conference before New Jersey's, which means the first vehicle the court considers for the swaps question would be the one in which the state won below. Kalshi, which won in the Third Circuit, has an interest in the court taking New Jersey's case on its own terms and none in hurrying, and the extension is consistent with that. The circuit split the court has been asked to resolve does not narrow in the meantime, and the en banc petition in the Ninth Circuit could still change what the Nevada ruling says by the time anyone reads it.

Montana Is a Truce, and Truces Are Priced at Thirty Days

The Montana stipulation appears to be the first case in which a state has agreed in writing not to enforce while the en banc question is open, and it is not the concession it looks like. Montana gives up nothing it was doing, Kalshi gives up a suit it was losing, and either side can restart on a month's notice. It is a template other states with thin resources may copy: let the Ninth Circuit's full court decide, keep the option to move, avoid the cost of litigating a preliminary injunction that the appellate court may moot. Washington, with an injunction already in hand, has no reason to take the deal, and did not.

Kalshi's month has produced a denial, a delay and a pause. None of them decides anything, and all of them push the decision further into a football season the company is playing under a growing list of restraints.