Is Robinhood legal in Washington State?

We found no Washington enforcement action against Robinhood: Robinhood went to court first. Robinhood Derivatives, the Robinhood company registered with the CFTC as a futures commission merchant, filed its complaint in federal court in Tacoma on March 30, 2026 (W.D. Wash. No. 3:26-cv-05311). It names the Washington State Gambling Commission's executive director, Tina Griffin, four of its commissioners (Chair Alicia Levy, Vice Chair Sarah Lawson, Noah Skartvedt and Michael Charles) and Attorney General Nicholas W. Brown, each in an official capacity.

The complaint builds its case for suing first from three things Washington had already done (pp.2-4):

• the Gambling Commission's guidance of December 9, 2025, which says "[o]ffering events-based contracts or participating in these markets is not authorized in Washington State" (¶3);
• the attorney general's March 27, 2026 suit against Kalshi in King County Superior Court, three days earlier (¶4);
• amicus briefs Washington joined in the Third, Fourth and Ninth Circuits backing state power over event contracts (¶6).

From those, Robinhood alleges "a concrete and imminent threat that Washington will file an enforcement action against Robinhood as it did against Kalshi" (¶7). It says the risk is "particularly acute" because it intermediates many of its users' trades on Kalshi's platform, and that it sends sports contract orders only to Kalshi's exchange while other event contracts go to Kalshi or ForecastEx (¶¶7, 29). It also reads Washington's Kalshi case as broader than the cases elsewhere: "Washington alleges that all event contracts, regardless of subject matter, are unlawful under Washington law" (¶49, p.14).

The complaint has one count, preemption under the Supremacy Clause, and asks for an injunction and a declaration that Washington cannot apply a list of gambling and consumer protection statutes, "and any other Washington law", to Robinhood's part in transactions in event contracts traded on a designated contract market (pp.25-27). Those are Robinhood's allegations and requests. No court has ruled on them.

On May 20 the two sides asked the court to pause the case, and Judge John C. Coughenour signed their stipulated order on May 21, 2026 (Dkt. 17). Its core term is that the defendants "shall not pursue civil or criminal enforcement actions against Robinhood" under the listed statutes "or any other Washington state law with respect to Robinhood's role in transactions involving event contracts traded on a DCM" (p.3, ll.1-5). A DCM is a designated contract market, an exchange the CFTC has registered, so the terms are not limited to Kalshi or to sports.

The agreement is tied to Nevada's cases. The parties said three appeals then before the Ninth Circuit, Robinhood's (No. 25-7831), Kalshi's (No. 25-7516) and North American Derivatives Exchange v. Nevada (No. 25-7187), "concern the same preemption issues raised by Robinhood's Complaint" (p.2, ll.12-21). So the case is "administratively stayed" until the court issues a further order following a Ninth Circuit decision "resolving one or more" of those appeals and the first of two things: the deadline to seek full-court (en banc) review of that decision expires with no request, or a request is denied (p.3, ll.6-13). Within 20 days of that point, unless they agree on another course, the parties report to the court on what the decision means for this case (p.3, ll.17-21).

Three limits sit in the same order. If the court enters no further order within 18 months of the stipulation's filing, the state may withdraw on 14 days' written notice (p.3, ll.22-24). The stipulation "does not resolve any claim or defense", and neither side may argue from it except to enforce it (pp.3-4). It is an agreement about enforcement while the courts work, not a ruling that Washington law is preempted.

Not by any order we found. On August 28, 2026 the Ninth Circuit decided all three Nevada appeals. In Robinhood's, it affirmed the denial of a restraining order and concluded that sports-related event contracts "are not 'swaps' under 7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(A)(ii)", rejecting Robinhood's conflict and field preemption arguments as well (memorandum, p.3). It is an unpublished ruling at the preliminary stage.

The parties to those appeals then took different routes. Robinhood petitioned the Supreme Court on September 10 (No. 26-338), and Nevada's response is due November 13, 2026. Kalshi asked the full Ninth Circuit to rehear its appeal, No. 25-7516, on September 9, and we found no ruling on that request. The stipulation asks for a decision resolving one or more of the three appeals, then an en banc deadline expiring unused or a request being denied, then a further order of the court (p.3, ll.6-13). We found no status report or further order in Robinhood's Washington case on the docket, which can lag the court's own system. Until the court acts, the non-enforcement terms stand as written. Kalshi at the Supreme Court follows Robinhood's petition with the others on the same question.

No order we found stops it. Robinhood's event contract restrictions page, read October 23, 2026, lists two state restrictions, Maryland residents and new sports contracts for Nevada residents, and none for Washington. The stipulated order says nothing about customers' accounts, positions or withdrawals.

One question it leaves open is Kalshi's own Washington order. A King County court has required Kalshi to block seven market categories, sports among them, for anyone located in the state, and Robinhood says its sports contract orders go only to Kalshi's exchange. Robinhood is not a party to that case, and we could not determine whether Kalshi's location block reaches orders placed through Robinhood. What Kalshi's Washington injunction switches off sets out its terms.

The Gambling Commission's position is that offering or trading on prediction markets is an activity Washington has not authorized. Robinhood's is that contracts on a CFTC-designated exchange are for federal regulators alone. That is a dispute over who may license and police the trades, the stipulation decides none of it, and the IRS has not issued guidance on event contracts.

Of the filers we've seen, the three most common ways are gambling winnings and losses under section 165(d), Form 8949 capital gains, and the Section 1256 60/40 treatment on Form 6781. How a Robinhood event contracts year is reported is on Robinhood event contracts taxes, and every other state is on Robinhood's legal status page.