Connecticut Files State Court Suit Against Kalshi — Ex Parte TRO Denied, Kalshi Counter-Sues the Next Day

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, Department of Consumer Protection Commissioner Bryan Cafferelli, and Governor Ned Lamont filed a lawsuit in Connecticut Superior Court on August 27, accusing Kalshi of operating unlicensed sports gambling in the state. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to stop Kalshi from offering sports event contracts to Connecticut residents, plus disgorgement of profits, restitution for affected users, and civil penalties. The Connecticut Superior Court denied the state's request for an immediate ex parte TRO — a restraining order issued without first giving Kalshi an opportunity to respond — meaning Kalshi can continue operating while the litigation proceeds. Kalshi counter-sued Connecticut state officials the following day.

The state court filing is a structural escalation of the Connecticut enforcement action. Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection issued cease-and-desist notices in December 2025, triggering Kalshi's federal court suit and the CFTC's intervention. That federal track produced a PI denial on August 11 — Judge Oliver's 'not a swap' ruling, now on appeal to the Second Circuit. The state court suit is an entirely separate enforcement track: rather than defending against Kalshi's federal preemption argument, AG Tong is now bringing affirmative state enforcement claims through a state court that does not share the D.Conn. federal court's preemption framework. Kalshi will almost certainly seek to remove the state court case to federal court, at which point the removal and remand fight will produce its own procedural litigation. Connecticut's aggressive two-track approach — defending in the Second Circuit while simultaneously opening a new state court front — reflects a strategy of using procedural volume to force Kalshi to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously.

The timing of the Connecticut state court suit, one day before the Ninth Circuit's 3-0 ruling against Kalshi, was likely coordinated with other state AG offices watching the appellate landscape. The Ninth Circuit decision — issued August 28, the day after Connecticut's filing — provides the most authoritative appellate support yet for the argument that sports event contracts are not swaps and are subject to state regulation. Although Connecticut is in the Second Circuit (not the Ninth), the Ninth Circuit ruling is persuasive authority that state courts and federal courts outside the Ninth Circuit can cite. CT AG Tong's office would have had access to the draft or circulating opinion before publication; the filing timing suggests the state was ready to move the moment appellate support materialized.

Connecticut now has two simultaneous prediction market cases: the federal case (D. Conn. PI denial on appeal to the Second Circuit) and the state court case (Kalshi counter-suit filed August 28). The Second Circuit appeal will resolve the federal preemption question; the state court case tests whether state consumer protection and gambling enforcement can reach Kalshi independently of the CFTC preemption argument. If the Second Circuit eventually upholds Judge Oliver's 'not a swap' reasoning and rules that Connecticut's laws apply, the state court case becomes the enforcement vehicle. If the Second Circuit reverses and rules the CEA preempts state law, the state court case is likely stayed or removed to federal court and dismissed. Connecticut's dual-track approach maximizes the probability that some enforcement vehicle is available regardless of how the federal preemption question resolves.

Operators mentioned in this article

CFTC-regulated

Kalshi

First fully CFTC-regulated US event-contract exchange.

Recent updates