Kalshi sues Louisiana to block enforcement of sports-event contracts

Kalshi has sued Louisiana officials in federal court, seeking to prevent the state from applying its gambling laws to the prediction-market operator’s sports and other event contracts. The Oct. 23 complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, is a pre-emptive challenge rather than a response to a newly filed state case.

In KalshiEX LLC v. Murrill et al., the company names Attorney General Liz Murrill, Governor Jeff Landry, Gaming Division Director Dawn Himel, the Louisiana Gaming Control Board and other officials as defendants. Kalshi contends that the Commodity Exchange Act gives the Commodity Futures Trading Commission exclusive authority over its contracts, displacing Louisiana’s separate gambling regime.

The company alleges that state officials will imminently bring an enforcement action to stop the contracts, although that assertion is Kalshi’s assessment in its complaint, not a court finding. It says officials have offered no assurance that they will not enforce the law, leaving it with “no option but to seek judicial relief.”

Louisiana has publicly taken the opposing view. In a Dec. 10, 2025 advisory to licensed sports-wagering businesses and platform-provider permittees, the Gaming Control Board said purported sporting-event contracts and certain other event contracts were illegal gambling under state criminal and gaming law. The board warned that directly or indirectly operating, offering or facilitating such contracts could affect a licensee’s or associated person’s suitability in Louisiana.

The dispute also concerns legislation that took effect Aug. 1 and expanded the state’s gambling-by-computer definition and enforcement powers. The statute allows the attorney general or the Gaming Control Board chairman to send cease-and-desist notices to alleged operators, platform providers that exchange gambling information, and merchant payment processors facilitating currency transfers. Recipients have no more than 10 days after receiving a notice to stop the identified conduct, and noncompliance can bring a fine.

The law also requires the attorney general to maintain a public list of recipients and authorizes subpoenas and injunction actions. It extends Louisiana jurisdiction to certain out-of-state website operators whose information is broadcast in the state. Kalshi argues that the regime could expose payment processors, media affiliates and geolocation providers supporting its platform to potential criminal penalties.

The filing could eventually give the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, a chance to weigh in on the federal-preemption question, though the case is not yet before that court. Other federal appeals courts have split: the Third Circuit sided with Kalshi in its New Jersey fight, while the Ninth Circuit ruled against it in Nevada. The Sixth Circuit in September upheld the denial of preliminary protection in Ohio and vacated an injunction that had protected Kalshi in Tennessee; Kalshi sought rehearing on Oct. 9.

As we reported in September, New Jersey has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit’s decision. The court has not agreed to hear the relevant cases, and Kalshi’s response to New Jersey’s petition is due Nov. 9.