Kalshi Seeks Ninth Circuit En Banc Rehearing While Robinhood Files Separate SCOTUS Petition
Kalshi filed a petition for en banc rehearing at the Ninth Circuit on September 9, asking the full 11-judge court to overturn the August 28 3-0 panel ruling that Nevada can regulate its sports contracts as gambling. Simultaneously, Robinhood filed its own separate certiorari petition with the Supreme Court challenging the same Ninth Circuit ruling. The two platforms are pursuing parallel legal strategies from the same defeat: Kalshi seeking a better ruling at the Ninth Circuit first; Robinhood going directly to SCOTUS. New Jersey has already filed a SCOTUS petition from the Third Circuit's April ruling. There are now two separate cert petitions before the Supreme Court on the prediction market question.
Kalshi filed a petition for en banc rehearing at the Ninth Circuit on September 9, 2026, asking the full court — 11 judges rather than the 3-judge panel that ruled 3-0 on August 28 — to reconsider whether Nevada can regulate its sports event contracts as gambling. En banc review is the procedural step between a panel ruling and Supreme Court petition; it asks the full circuit to reconsider a panel decision where the losing party believes the ruling conflicts with established circuit precedent or creates a circuit split requiring full-court resolution. Kalshi's petition argues both: that the Ninth Circuit panel's ruling conflicts with the Third Circuit's April ruling, and that the 'exceptionally important question of federal preemption' requires the full court's guidance before the question goes to SCOTUS. Ninth Circuit en banc petitions are granted in roughly 1-2% of cases — a low grant rate, but higher for cases involving acknowledged circuit splits on federal statutory interpretation.
Robinhood filed its own separate certiorari petition with the Supreme Court on the same day — September 9 — seeking SCOTUS review of the same Ninth Circuit ruling without waiting for en banc consideration. The two platforms are pursuing parallel strategies from the same August 28 defeat. Kalshi's approach: exhaust the Ninth Circuit process first, potentially obtaining a better ruling at the en banc level that either reverses the panel or produces a narrower adverse ruling; then petition SCOTUS if needed. Robinhood's approach: go directly to SCOTUS, treating the circuit split as already established and the en banc process as unnecessary delay. Neither approach is wrong as a strategic matter, and the two can coexist: Robinhood's SCOTUS petition can proceed while Kalshi's en banc petition is pending; SCOTUS will likely hold Robinhood's petition pending resolution of either the en banc process or New Jersey's already-filed petition from the Third Circuit loss.
The SCOTUS petition landscape has now expanded significantly. New Jersey filed the first prediction market cert petition on September 2 — asking SCOTUS to review the Third Circuit's April ruling that went against NJ and for Kalshi. Robinhood's September 9 petition asks SCOTUS to review the Ninth Circuit's August 28 ruling that went against Robinhood (and Kalshi) and for Nevada. The two petitions approach the same ultimate question — does the CEA preempt state gambling regulation of prediction market sports contracts? — from opposite circuit outcomes. SCOTUS can consolidate multiple cert petitions raising the same question, brief them together, and issue one ruling. The more petitions that arrive, the harder it becomes for SCOTUS to avoid resolving the question; the Court is unlikely to simultaneously grant NJ's petition from the Third Circuit ruling and deny Robinhood's from the Ninth Circuit ruling when both raise the same statutory interpretation question. At least three prediction market cert petitions are now anticipated: NJ (Third Circuit), Robinhood (Ninth Circuit), and whatever Kalshi files after the en banc result.
The practical effect of Kalshi's en banc petition is a pause on Kalshi's own SCOTUS timeline. If the Ninth Circuit grants en banc review, the en banc court will schedule full briefing and argument — a process that can take six to twelve months. If the en banc panel then rules differently from the three-judge panel (possible, but not likely given the 3-0 margin and the strength of the panel's reasoning), the circuit split may be resolved at the circuit level, reducing the SCOTUS urgency. If the en banc panel affirms the three-judge ruling, Kalshi would have a stronger petition to SCOTUS with a full-circuit ruling rather than just a three-judge panel. If the Ninth Circuit denies en banc review — the most likely outcome statistically — Kalshi can immediately petition SCOTUS using the same arguments it made to the en banc court. Either way, Kalshi's en banc petition is a lower-risk first move than going straight to SCOTUS: it costs little if denied, potentially helps if granted, and preserves the SCOTUS option regardless of outcome.
Operators mentioned in this article
Recent updates
Kalshi's Parlays Drive Back-to-Back $5B Days — and Hand Critics Their Strongest Argument
Kalshi traded a record $5.33 billion on November 7 and $5.36 billion on November 8, with multi-leg parlay-style 'combos' making up roughly 75% of both days' volume. Its 30-day volume topped $100 billion. But the parlay dominance cuts against the platform's legal defense: parlays are a quintessential sportsbook product, and the American Gaming Association has told the Second Circuit that parlays make up about two-thirds of Kalshi's volume and should be treated as sports bets. The implied house edge on 10-plus-leg combos is around 25%, undercutting the argument that these are neutral financial instruments rather than gambling.
Cruz Bill Would Require State or Tribal Approval for Sports Contracts — a Bipartisan Legislative Threat Emerges
Senator Ted Cruz, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, is preparing a bill that would bar federally regulated prediction markets from offering gambling-tied event contracts, including sports, unless a state or tribal government authorizes them. It would not ban the contracts nationwide but would require platforms to obtain approval jurisdiction by jurisdiction, resembling state-by-state sportsbook regulation. The proposal arrives as Democrats take control of both chambers after the midterms, creating a potential bipartisan reckoning: a Republican committee chair and a newly skeptical Democratic majority both eyeing restrictions on a sector that had relied on federal protection.
CFTC Tells Platforms to Stop Geofencing States — Directly Colliding With State Court Orders
The CFTC issued an interpretation on November 5 of its 'impartial access' core principle, telling regulated exchanges including Kalshi and Polymarket to drop state-by-state geographic blocks within 30 days or explain why they cannot. The demand collides head-on with existing state court orders that require the platforms to geofence: Washington ordered Kalshi to geofence in August, and Michigan ordered it to use licensed geolocation to block the state in September, with a $500,000 daily fine for violations. Chairman Michael Selig framed the interpretation as a uniformity requirement. The platforms are now caught between a federal demand to unblock states and state court orders to block them.