Nevada judges reject appeal to stay Kalshi’s ban

Nevada’s highest court declined to put a preliminary injunction against Kalshi on hold while the company continues its appeal in a dispute over Nevada’s gambling laws. In the same order, the court also approved requests by two out-of-state attorneys to participate in the case on behalf of the Nevada Gaming Control Board.

The July 1, 2026 order denied KalshiEX’s emergency motion to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction pending an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. That means the injunction remains in place while the legal battle continues.

The court also granted motions allowing Nicole A. Saharsky and Minh Nguyen-Dang of Mayer Brown LLP to appear on behalf of the Nevada Gaming Control Board pursuant to Rule 42 of the Nevada Supreme Court.

According to the order, both attorneys have submitted verified applications, certificates showing they are in good standing with their respective state bar associations, and required Nevada State Bar Rule 42 documentation. The justices found that the documents showed that neither lawyer had sought permission to appear in Nevada courts in the previous three years, meeting the requirements of the rule.

Jessica A. Whalen of the Nevada Attorney General’s office will remain responsible for all matters presented by the two attorneys. The order also ordered Saharsky and Nguyen-Dang to obtain electronic filing bills with the Nevada Supreme Court within 14 days if they have not already done so, warning that failure to comply could result in penalties.

Court upholds Nevada ban against Kalshi

The latest decision follows a string of decisions that have consistently gone against Kalshi in Nevada. A state district court previously granted the Nevada Gaming Control Board’s request for a preliminary injunction, preventing the company from offering its contracts for events in the state pending litigation. The board argued that Kalshi’s contracts on sporting events constituted unlicensed sports betting under Nevada law, while Kalshi maintained that the contracts were federally regulated financial products overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Nevada also sought contempt sanctions against Kalshi, alleging the company continued to offer contracts to Nevada consumers despite the injunction. Kalshi disputed these allegations and claimed to have taken steps to comply with court orders.

Separately, a federal judge earlier denied Kalshi’s request to stay the state court ban, leaving the restrictions in place before the matter reaches the Nevada Supreme Court. That ruling kept the injunction in place while related appeals moved forward.

In considering Kalshi’s latest emergency motion, the Nevada Supreme Court applied the established factors determining whether a stay pending appeal should be granted, including potential prejudice to each party and the likelihood of success on the merits.

« Having considered the parties’ arguments in light of these factors, we are not persuaded that the factors favor a stay, » the order states. « Accordingly, the motion is denied. »

The ruling leaves the preliminary injunction in place pending the appeal. The order was issued by Justices Pickering, Paraguire and Bell and concluded: « It is ORDERED. »

Featured Image: Kalshi / Canva