The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit published precedential opinion 26a0272p.06 on 2026/09/25 in KalshiEX LLC v. Matthew Schuler and KalshiEX LLC v. William Orgel, the consolidated Ohio and Tennessee appeals. The court’s opinions table confirms the case numbers, parties, panel, and publication date. Secondary coverage says Kalshi lost, with Ohio’s denial of preliminary relief left in place and Tennessee relief vacated, allowing both states to keep enforcing their gambling laws against the sports-event contracts at issue.

Sixth Circuit opinion 26a0272p.06 puts both appeals on record

The confirmed event is that the Sixth Circuit issued one published opinion covering Kalshi’s Ohio and Tennessee appeals. The court’s official opinions table lists opinion 26a0272p.06 for No. 26-3196, KalshiEX LLC v. Matthew Schuler, and No. 26-5235, KalshiEX LLC v. William Orgel, with a publication date of 2026/09/25. CourtListener docket metadata also shows the consolidated matters were argued on 2026/07/30, which helps explain why one appellate decision now frames the dispute across both states.

The merits details still depend on the reported descriptions of the opinion rather than direct quotation here, but those descriptions are consistent: Kalshi’s sports-event contracts did not win the federal protection it sought, and the immediate procedural result favored continued state enforcement. That makes the next question less about whether the case exists and more about why the swap label matters so much.

Why the swap definition drives the Kalshi dispute

The central dispute is whether these sports-event contracts fit the Commodity Exchange Act definition of a swap strongly enough to support Kalshi’s argument for exclusive federal oversight. That is a narrower question than whether Kalshi is generally overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Secondary coverage of the Sixth Circuit says Kalshi failed to show that its sports contracts qualify as swaps, which would explain why its preemption argument did not carry the day in Ohio and Tennessee.

The clearest primary-source guide to that reasoning comes from the Ninth Circuit’s 2026/08/28 decision in KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad. There, the Ninth Circuit held that similar sports-event contracts were likely not swaps and rejected field-preemption and conflict-preemption arguments against Nevada gaming enforcement. The panel said the statutory test cannot be satisfied simply by pointing to downstream economic effects of sporting events, such as broader business consequences for teams, broadcasters, or advertisers.

That distinction matters because it separates contract classification from exchange status. Even if a platform operates in a federally regulated market framework, state gambling law can remain in play if the specific sports-outcome contracts do not meet the federal category Kalshi relies on. That same fault line helps explain why different courts are reaching sharply different outcomes on closely related facts.

Ohio and Tennessee gain leverage, but the split is still unresolved

The practical takeaway is that the reported Sixth Circuit result strengthens Ohio and Tennessee’s ability to keep enforcing their laws against the sports contracts at issue. Secondary accounts say the court upheld Ohio’s denial of a preliminary injunction and vacated Tennessee relief that had temporarily favored Kalshi. What is not yet established here is the exact operational follow-through, such as fresh state notices, geoblocking changes, penalties, or formal statements on user access in either state.

The wider legal picture is now more fractured. The Ninth Circuit’s adverse ruling against Kalshi is confirmed by official opinion, while secondary legal analysis says a divided Third Circuit previously backed Kalshi in a New Jersey dispute by treating the sports-related contracts as swaps and viewing state gambling enforcement as preempted. If that characterization holds, the appellate divide is no longer theoretical: one circuit reportedly favors Kalshi’s federal theory, while the Sixth and Ninth Circuits point the other way.

That raises the odds of further review, but it does not yet make Supreme Court involvement a live filed proceeding. No retrieved post-opinion filing confirms rehearing, en banc review, or a certiorari petition, so the clearest near-term conclusion is legal fragmentation across jurisdictions rather than a settled national rule.