Kalshi Sues Louisiana Before the State Acts, Citing Its New Online Gambling Laws

Kalshi has asked a federal court in Louisiana to bar the state from enforcing its gambling laws against its sports contracts, although Louisiana has brought no case against it. The suit targets the enforcement powers that took effect on 1 August, and it opens the prediction market fight in the Fifth Circuit.

• KalshiEX LLC sued Attorney General Liz Murrill, Governor Jeff Landry, the Louisiana Gaming Control Board and other state officials in the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on 23 October
• The complaint makes one claim, that the Commodity Exchange Act pre-empts Louisiana's gambling and sports wagering laws as applied to Kalshi, and seeks a declaration and injunctions
• It cites Act 182 of 2026, in force since 1 August, which raised the maximum fine for operating online gambling to $100,000 and lets the attorney general seek website takedowns and account freezes
• Kalshi says it "believes" Louisiana will "imminently" act against it, but the complaint identifies no cease-and-desist notice or enforcement case, and no injunction motion was on the docket at the time of writing
• The suit follows Kalshi's Sixth Circuit defeat in Ohio and Tennessee; nothing has been decided in Louisiana

Kalshi Asks a Louisiana Federal Court to Shield It From State Enforcement

KalshiEX LLC, which runs Kalshi's exchange, filed a complaint for permanent injunctive and declaratory relief in the Western District of Louisiana on 23 October 2026 (KalshiEX LLC v. Murrill, No. 1:26-cv-04476). The defendants, all sued in their official capacities, are Attorney General Liz Murrill; Dawn Himel, director of the attorney general's Gaming Division; Governor Jeff Landry; the Louisiana Gaming Control Board, its chairperson Christopher B. Hebert and eight of its members; the Louisiana State Police Gaming Enforcement Division; State Police Superintendent Robert Paul Hodges; and Revenue Secretary Jarrod J. Coniglio.

The complaint pleads a single count under the Supremacy Clause. Kalshi argues that the Commodity Exchange Act gives the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) "exclusive jurisdiction" over contracts traded on a designated contract market, that its sports contracts are swaps, and that Louisiana law is pre-empted expressly, by occupation of the field and by conflict. It says it cannot comply with Louisiana's licensing regime, which requires in-state wagering and servers, and that withdrawing would breach the CFTC's impartial access rule. It asks the court to declare that enforcing sections 14:90, 14:90.1, 14:90.3, 27:19.1, 27:19.2 and 27:604 against it is unconstitutional, and to enjoin them by restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunction.

The suit is pre-emptive. Kalshi alleges, "upon information and belief", that the defendants "will imminently bring an enforcement action" against it. It cites an advisory notice of 5 December 2025, signed by Hebert, in which the board said it "sees no defense to offering such activity pursuant to a CFTC license". It quotes a March 2026 article in The Advocate in which Hebert said the state was "actively seeking ways to stop this" and Murrill said of prediction markets: "That's gambling." It also cites amicus briefs Murrill signed in three appeals courts. Those are Kalshi's allegations; no court has examined them.

Kalshi has not yet asked for emergency relief. The complaint says that after filing, Kalshi will tell the defendants it intends to seek a preliminary injunction, and will also seek a temporary restraining order unless they promise not to begin enforcement while that motion is pending. By 27 October the docket showed only the complaint, a corporate disclosure statement and proposed summonses, all filed on 23 October. No public response from the state had been found at the time of writing.

The Laws Louisiana Passed This Spring

The enforcement tools Kalshi cites come from Act 182 of the 2026 regular session, House Bill 883 by Representative Laurie Schlegel, which passed the House 99 to 0 and the Senate 35 to 0, was signed by Landry on 15 May and took effect on 1 August, according to the Louisiana Legislature. It raised the maximum fine for conducting gambling by computer from $20,000 to $100,000, with up to five years' imprisonment; made each wager a separate violation; and required courts to order forfeiture of profits. It exposed platform providers, geolocation providers, media affiliates and anyone else who "knowingly supports or facilitates" online gambling to fines of up to $20,000 and five years, with fines doubled where a person under 21 is involved.

Under the new sections 27:19.1 and 27:19.2, the attorney general or the board chairman may serve a cease-and-desist notice giving ten days to stop, and the attorney general must publish a list of recipients. The attorney general may seek injunctions, including ex parte orders, to remove websites and freeze associated bank and credit accounts, and in such actions a violation "shall conclusively be determined irreparable harm". A companion law, Act 48 (House Bill 53), signed on 11 May and also effective on 1 August, made gambling and gambling by computer predicate offences for racketeering. The complaint does not cite it.

Kalshi Is Suing Over Words, Not an Enforcement Action

Kalshi's suit against New York followed a cease-and-desist letter from the state's gaming regulator. Here the trigger is an advisory notice, newspaper quotes and amicus briefs, and the first question for the court is likely to be whether that amounts to a credible threat of enforcement. Act 182 is Kalshi's strongest answer: its ten-day cease-and-desist deadline, ex parte injunctions and presumption of irreparable harm mean a state action could move quickly, and its payment processor and platform provisions could reach Kalshi's partners as well as Kalshi. Suing first lets Kalshi choose the forum and put pre-emption before a judge ahead of any ex parte order.

Louisiana's Own Statute Carries an Exchange Carve-Out

The gambling-by-computer section that Act 182 rewrote still says that nothing in it shall "prohibit, limit, or otherwise restrict" transactions in futures, options, commodities "or other similar instruments" on a commodities exchange. Kalshi quotes that language in its complaint, but it pleads only federal pre-emption. The carve-out does not settle the question: the board's notice says it does not regard sports contracts as commodities transactions, and the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have held that Kalshi's sports contracts are not, or are likely not, swaps. It does mean that Louisiana's own text, and not only federal law, speaks to instruments traded on an exchange.

The Fifth Circuit Is Untested Ground

The courts of appeals are split. The Third Circuit upheld Kalshi's injunction against New Jersey, and New Jersey has asked the Supreme Court to decide who regulates Kalshi. The Ninth Circuit ruled for Nevada in August and the Sixth Circuit for Ohio and Tennessee in September, while Kalshi's complaint lists its Maryland appeal in the Fourth Circuit as argued and its New York appeal as pending in the Second. A Louisiana ruling would be appealable to the Fifth Circuit, which, according to DeFi Rate, has issued no ruling on the question. The outcome will also matter to the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe, which launched a prediction market app on Kalshi's exchange in Louisiana in September.

Kalshi has sued a state that has not yet acted, betting that Louisiana's new powers make waiting the greater risk. Whether a federal judge accepts that the threat is real enough to rule on is the first test, before pre-emption is reached at all.