Is Kalshi legal in Ohio?

The Ohio Casino Control Commission regulates sports gaming in the state. It sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter saying that, "by offering 'event contracts' on sporting events to citizens located within the State of Ohio, without a sports gaming license," Kalshi was violating Ohio law, and demanding that it "immediately cease offering these sports wagering products unlawfully in Ohio" (quoted in the Sixth Circuit's opinion, p.9). Kalshi's rehearing petition dates the letter to March 2025 (p.7). The letter also called offering sports gaming to people under 21 "a flagrant disregard of Ohio's statutory gambling age limit" (opinion p.9). Ohio requires sports bettors to be 21, and the court noted that "Kalshi does not currently comply with either State's gaming laws" (p.8).

Kalshi answered that, as "a federally licensed exchange," it could not "be regulated by Ohio or any other state" (p.9). It then sued the Commission, its members, its executive director and the Ohio attorney general in federal court in Columbus, KalshiEX v. Schuler, No. 2:25-cv-01165. It asked for a declaration that Ohio's gambling, nuisance and sports gaming chapters are preempted as applied to its exchange, and for a preliminary injunction (p.10).

Judge Sarah D. Morrison denied Kalshi's preliminary injunction, finding it had not shown a likelihood of success and that the equities and public interest favored Ohio (opinion p.10). On April 24, 2026 a Sixth Circuit motions panel refused Kalshi an injunction while it appealed, saying Kalshi had "shown at most only that the merits [were] in equipoise," and expedited the appeal (pp.10-11).

The court heard the Ohio appeal on July 30, 2026, together with Tennessee's appeal from an injunction a Nashville judge had granted Kalshi (p.1). On September 25, 2026, Judges Clay, Gibbons and Bloomekatz ruled against Kalshi in both. The court held "that Kalshi has not shown that its sports-event contracts satisfy the statutory definition of a 'swap'" and, "even assuming that Kalshi's sports-event contracts are swaps," that federal commodities law "neither expressly nor impliedly preempts Ohio's or Tennessee's gambling laws" (p.3). It affirmed the denial of Kalshi's injunction against Ohio and vacated the Tennessee injunction (p.49). Having found no likelihood of success, it did not reach the other injunction factors (p.49).

The ruling is about sports-event contracts and comes at the preliminary-injunction stage. It refuses Kalshi protection from Ohio's laws; it does not order Kalshi to stop anything, and it is not a final judgment.

On October 9, 2026 Kalshi filed a petition for rehearing by the panel and by the full Sixth Circuit. It argues that the ruling "is irreconcilable with recent decisions of the Third and Ninth Circuits" and that "This Court should grant rehearing en banc" (pp.2-4). It also points to the CFTC's October 9 proposal to define event contracts as swaps (pp.1-2). We found no order on the petition as of October 21, 2026, and we did not read the court's docket.

The opinion sends the case back to the district court "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion" (p.49). We could not read the district court's docket, so we don't describe what has happened there since.

The federal appeals courts that have ruled disagree. As the Sixth Circuit's opinion notes, the Third Circuit affirmed an injunction for Kalshi against New Jersey, and the Ninth Circuit, on August 28, 2026, affirmed an order dissolving Kalshi's injunction against Nevada (p.9, n.3). All are commodities-law rulings at the preliminary stage, not tax rulings. New Jersey has asked the Supreme Court to take the question; Kalshi at the Supreme Court follows the petitions, and is Kalshi gambling? sets out both sides.

No order or filing we read addresses withdrawals, deposits or open positions for Ohio customers. The Sixth Circuit's ruling denies Kalshi an injunction and orders nothing about customer accounts.

Kalshi's position is that its contracts are derivatives on a CFTC-designated contract market, governed by federal law rather than state gambling law. CFTC lawyers appear on the briefs in the Ohio appeal as amicus curiae (opinion p.2). Kalshi's petition says the court denied the CFTC's request to take part in oral argument (p.7).

On October 9, 2026 the CFTC proposed a rule that would define certain event contracts, sports included, as swaps. It is a proposal and is not in force. Ohio's position, which the court accepted at this stage, is that its gambling laws apply to Kalshi's sports contracts.

Kalshi's state-court suit. The Commission's July 15, 2026 minutes record that Kalshi filed "a separate lawsuit" in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, "attempting to stop the Commission's efforts to enforce state laws and sanction unlicensed regulated activities" (p.1). The minutes give no filing date or case number, and we did not read that docket.

The $5 million fine notice. A notice on Commission letterhead, dated April 14, 2026 and numbered Case No. 2026-SGR-001, proposes a $5 million fine for operating unlicensed sports gaming and offers Kalshi a hearing. The copies we found were published by third parties, not by the Commission, and the Commission's minutes we read don't mention it, so we treat it as unverified. A proposed fine is not a final one; we found no record of a hearing or a final order.

The Supreme Court. On October 7, 2026 Ohio filed a brief, joined by 38 other states and the District of Columbia, supporting New Jersey's petition in Flaherty v. KalshiEX (No. 26-299). Governor Mike DeWine welcomed the Sixth Circuit ruling on September 26.

Michigan, also in the Sixth Circuit, has its own case: Michigan.

We found no Ohio order or action aimed at brokers that offer Kalshi's contracts. The Commission did write to its licensed sportsbooks that it would "take administrative action against any licensee" that chose to associate with a company "operating illegally" in Ohio (opinion p.9). That letter went to sportsbooks the Commission licenses, and Kalshi called it an attempt to limit its business relationships (p.9).

Nothing in the case addresses federal tax, and a state gambling ruling isn't a tax ruling. How Realize rebuilds gains and losses from Kalshi's data is in how to file Kalshi taxes; every other state is on the Kalshi legal page.