The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 28 unanimously held that Kalshi had not shown Nevada’s regulation of its sports-event contracts was likely preempted by federal commodities law, affirming the dissolution of a preliminary injunction and allowing state gaming authorities to enforce their requirements while litigation continues. Writing for the three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson rejected Kalshi’s claim that the contracts are swaps under exclusive Commodity Futures Trading Commission jurisdiction as a designated contract market, finding they likely fall outside the applicable meaning of “swap” because they function as sports bets and stating that “the CFTC is not a national gambling regulator.” The panel rejected express, conflict, and field-preemption arguments and returned Nevada’s separate election-contract claims to the district court. The CFTC strongly objected, with spokesman Zack Fulton saying the panel misinterpreted federal law, that swaps remain swaps regardless of the underlying asset, and that the Commodity Exchange Act exempts only onions and movie box-office receipts, arguing the ruling created an unauthorized exception and a circuit split that could require Supreme Court review. Kalshi, through spokesman Danni Lever, said it does not believe CFTC rules prohibit sports contracts and will seek further review. The opinion raised major-questions doctrine concerns about a broad reading of “swap” but did not invalidate the CFTC’s pending proposal to amend Rule 40.11 with ninety-day reviews for certain event contracts involving gaming, nor did it resolve any future Administrative Procedure Act challenge. The decision conflicts with a Third Circuit ruling favoring Kalshi against New Jersey, while a Fourth Circuit case remains pending and separate Connecticut litigation continues outside the Nevada sports-contract fight.