Nevada's highest court has declined to pause a preliminary injunction against Kalshi, a company embroiled in a dispute over the state's gaming laws. The injunction remains in effect as the legal fight continues, with the company's appeal pending before the Nevada Supreme Court.
The court's order, dated July 1, 2026, denied Kalshi's emergency motion seeking a stay of the district court's preliminary injunction. This decision comes as the Nevada Gaming Control Board has argued that Kalshi's sports-related event contracts amount to unlicensed sports wagering under Nevada law.
In a separate development, the court approved requests from two out-of-state attorneys to participate in the case on behalf of the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Nicole A. Saharsky and Minh Nguyen-Dang of Mayer Brown LLP were granted permission to appear under Nevada Supreme Court Rule 42.
The attorneys submitted verified applications, certificates showing they are in good standing with their respective state bars, and required documentation from the State Bar of Nevada. The justices found that neither lawyer had sought permission to appear before Nevada courts during the previous three years, satisfying the rule's requirements.
A full-day evidentiary hearing is scheduled for July 16 to determine whether Kalshi should be held in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction. The company has disputed allegations that it continued offering contracts to Nevada users despite the injunction.
The latest ruling follows a series 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 Kalshi from offering its event contracts in the state while litigation proceeds.
Nevada has sought contempt sanctions against Kalshi, alleging the company failed to comply with court orders. Kalshi has argued that its contracts are federally regulated financial products overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The Nevada Supreme Court applied established factors governing whether a stay should be granted pending appeal, including potential harm to each side and the likelihood of success on the merits. The court ultimately decided that the factors did not favor granting a stay.
The decision leaves the preliminary injunction in force while the appeal proceeds. The order was issued by a panel of justices, concluding with the statement, "It is so ORDERED."
