On June 24, 2025, the company filed opposition papers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. This move comes after a group of tribal nations and associations submitted an amicus brief aiming to block Kalshi’s bid for a preliminary injunction against the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission.
The heart of the dispute is whether Kalshi’s sports-event contracts fall under Maryland sports betting laws or are covered by federal futures regulations.
Tribal Amicus Brief in Maryland Case
A coalition of 27 federally recognized tribes and seven tribal associations filed an amicus brief to support Maryland’s efforts to enforce a cease-and-desist order against Kalshi.
Members include the Indian Gaming Association, the California Nations Indian Gaming Association and groups representing tribes in Arizona and Oklahoma, as well as the National Congress of American Indians.
They argue that Kalshi’s sports-event contracts amount to unlicensed sports wagers that threaten tribal gaming compacts and could divert revenue from on-reservation Maryland casinos. The brief contends that prediction markets like Kalshi lack the protections and oversight required under Maryland law, such as responsible gaming measures and age-verification safeguards.
The tribes also warn of potential harm to their sovereign right to regulate gaming activities on tribal lands. They claim that Kalshi’s entry into the Maryland market could undermine decades of negotiated compacts, which guarantee tribes exclusive rights to operate certain forms of gambling within state borders.
By stepping in as amici, the tribes seek to preserve the integrity of these compacts and prevent what they see as unfair competition from a federally regulated platform.
Kalshi’s Opposition and Legal Arguments
In its opposition filing, Kalshi urges the court to reject the tribal brief, asserting that the tribes lack legal standing to intervene. Kalshi maintains that its sports-event contracts are futures products, authorized by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under the Commodity Exchange Act. The company argues that federal regulation of these contracts preempts conflicting state laws—meaning Maryland cannot bar trading on its platform.
Kalshi’s lawyers point out that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over designated contract markets like theirs, and that the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission exceeded its authority when it issued the cease-and-desist order.
The opposition documents emphasize that allowing state regulators or third parties to dictate terms would create a “patchwork” of varying laws, undermining federal policy and chilling innovation in the prediction market industry.
Additionally, Kalshi challenges the tribes’ assertion of harm, arguing that no direct economic injury to tribal gaming revenues has been demonstrated. The company notes that its markets require age verification and impose trading limits, and that it does not offer products resembling parimutuel or fixed-odds wagers governed by state gaming commissions.
Moving forward, Kalshi is asking the court to dismiss the tribes’ brief and grant its motion for a preliminary injunction. If successful, the platform would resume offering sports-event contracts in Maryland while the broader lawsuit proceeds.
Both sides now await the court’s decision on these procedural issues. A ruling on standing and preemption could have significant implications not only for Kalshi’s operations in Maryland but also for the wider debate over the boundary between state gambling laws and federally regulated financial products.
The court’s determination will shape how prediction markets coexist with traditional gaming frameworks and tribal compacts across the country.
