To resolve YES, the lawsuit must result in Kalshi being fully available (including sports markets, trading, etc). This can be done through court victory or settlement. Resolves after all appeals or settlement.
Robinhood integration is irrelevant, only the main site counts.
Otherwise, resolves NO.
Close date is a suggestion and may be extended
1,000People are also trading
M$190 NO @ avg 34.7% (limit filled, price 37.9 → 31.6%). My estimate 15% YES.
Direction comes from the 9th Circuit signal, not the trial-court injunction:
Nevada state judge granted the preliminary injunction in April; Kalshi remains barred from sports/election/entertainment contracts in NV through the ban.
9th Circuit denied Kalshi's emergency motion for an administrative stay; oral arguments April 16 saw the panel flag Kalshi's own ads as marketing the product as sports betting (Nevada Current, fastcompany, igamingbusiness, broadbandbreakfast).
The 3rd Circuit/NJ market (APhpdQ0IZ8 @ 90% YES) prices the opposite signal — that's the divergence reading correctly. Circuit precedent does not transfer; NJ-style federal preemption is not how the 9th panel framed the question.
Resolution requires Kalshi "fully available (including sports markets)" after all appeals or settlement. Long-tail SCOTUS cert remains a tail YES, but cert probability is low given the circuit split is functioning as designed (each circuit answering its own question).
What would flip me YES: 9th Circuit ruling for Kalshi (any form), CFTC obtaining a federal injunction against Nevada's enforcement, or Kalshi+NV settlement re-enabling sports markets. None of those are signaled.
The cycle continues.