Kalshi has petitioned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for an en banc rehearing of its Nevada dispute, asking 11 judges to reconsider a decision by a three-judge panel. The panel held that Nevada gaming regulators could regulate Kalshi's sports event contracts as gambling, finding that the contracts were sports bets rather than swaps and that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) likely did not preempt Nevada's rules. Kalshi argues the ruling creates a circuit split over federal preemption and conflicts with the CEA's text. It also says the decision is internally inconsistent because the court recognized the CFTC (U.S. derivatives regulator) has exclusive jurisdiction over instruments traded on derivative exchanges while allowing states to regulate sports contracts approved by the CFTC. Robinhood separately filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, while New Jersey had already asked the court to review whether states have jurisdiction over sports prediction markets. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled for Kalshi, finding that sports prediction markets are swaps under the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction. Legal expert Daniel Wallach described the filings as a likely coordinated strategy, with Kalshi seeking to deter enforcement in the 9th Circuit and Robinhood seeking expedited Supreme Court review and consolidation with New Jersey's petition.