Kalshi Seeks Ninth Circuit En Banc Rehearing While Robinhood Files Separate SCOTUS Petition
Kalshi filed a petition for en banc rehearing at the Ninth Circuit on September 9, asking the full 11-judge court to overturn the August 28 3-0 panel ruling that Nevada can regulate its sports contracts as gambling. Simultaneously, Robinhood filed its own separate certiorari petition with the Supreme Court challenging the same Ninth Circuit ruling. The two platforms are pursuing parallel legal strategies from the same defeat: Kalshi seeking a better ruling at the Ninth Circuit first; Robinhood going directly to SCOTUS. New Jersey has already filed a SCOTUS petition from the Third Circuit's April ruling. There are now two separate cert petitions before the Supreme Court on the prediction market question.
Kalshi filed a petition for en banc rehearing at the Ninth Circuit on September 9, 2026, asking the full court — 11 judges rather than the 3-judge panel that ruled 3-0 on August 28 — to reconsider whether Nevada can regulate its sports event contracts as gambling. En banc review is the procedural step between a panel ruling and Supreme Court petition; it asks the full circuit to reconsider a panel decision where the losing party believes the ruling conflicts with established circuit precedent or creates a circuit split requiring full-court resolution. Kalshi's petition argues both: that the Ninth Circuit panel's ruling conflicts with the Third Circuit's April ruling, and that the 'exceptionally important question of federal preemption' requires the full court's guidance before the question goes to SCOTUS. Ninth Circuit en banc petitions are granted in roughly 1-2% of cases — a low grant rate, but higher for cases involving acknowledged circuit splits on federal statutory interpretation.
Robinhood filed its own separate certiorari petition with the Supreme Court on the same day — September 9 — seeking SCOTUS review of the same Ninth Circuit ruling without waiting for en banc consideration. The two platforms are pursuing parallel strategies from the same August 28 defeat. Kalshi's approach: exhaust the Ninth Circuit process first, potentially obtaining a better ruling at the en banc level that either reverses the panel or produces a narrower adverse ruling; then petition SCOTUS if needed. Robinhood's approach: go directly to SCOTUS, treating the circuit split as already established and the en banc process as unnecessary delay. Neither approach is wrong as a strategic matter, and the two can coexist: Robinhood's SCOTUS petition can proceed while Kalshi's en banc petition is pending; SCOTUS will likely hold Robinhood's petition pending resolution of either the en banc process or New Jersey's already-filed petition from the Third Circuit loss.
The SCOTUS petition landscape has now expanded significantly. New Jersey filed the first prediction market cert petition on September 2 — asking SCOTUS to review the Third Circuit's April ruling that went against NJ and for Kalshi. Robinhood's September 9 petition asks SCOTUS to review the Ninth Circuit's August 28 ruling that went against Robinhood (and Kalshi) and for Nevada. The two petitions approach the same ultimate question — does the CEA preempt state gambling regulation of prediction market sports contracts? — from opposite circuit outcomes. SCOTUS can consolidate multiple cert petitions raising the same question, brief them together, and issue one ruling. The more petitions that arrive, the harder it becomes for SCOTUS to avoid resolving the question; the Court is unlikely to simultaneously grant NJ's petition from the Third Circuit ruling and deny Robinhood's from the Ninth Circuit ruling when both raise the same statutory interpretation question. At least three prediction market cert petitions are now anticipated: NJ (Third Circuit), Robinhood (Ninth Circuit), and whatever Kalshi files after the en banc result.
The practical effect of Kalshi's en banc petition is a pause on Kalshi's own SCOTUS timeline. If the Ninth Circuit grants en banc review, the en banc court will schedule full briefing and argument — a process that can take six to twelve months. If the en banc panel then rules differently from the three-judge panel (possible, but not likely given the 3-0 margin and the strength of the panel's reasoning), the circuit split may be resolved at the circuit level, reducing the SCOTUS urgency. If the en banc panel affirms the three-judge ruling, Kalshi would have a stronger petition to SCOTUS with a full-circuit ruling rather than just a three-judge panel. If the Ninth Circuit denies en banc review — the most likely outcome statistically — Kalshi can immediately petition SCOTUS using the same arguments it made to the en banc court. Either way, Kalshi's en banc petition is a lower-risk first move than going straight to SCOTUS: it costs little if denied, potentially helps if granted, and preserves the SCOTUS option regardless of outcome.
Operators mentioned in this article
Recent updates
Kalshi Launches Gold and Silver Perpetual Futures After CFTC Approval — First Non-Crypto Perps Cleared in the US
Kalshi launched perpetual futures on gold and silver on September 10 after the CFTC approved the contracts — making them the first non-cryptocurrency perpetual futures to receive US regulatory clearance. The contracts are cash-settled, never expire, and trade 24/7 using Pyth Network price feeds. Kalshi simultaneously has pending applications for perpetual futures on US equities, copper, and currencies. Since receiving CFTC approval for crypto perpetual futures in late May, Kalshi has done $44 billion in notional volume on those contracts. The gold and silver launches represent Kalshi's most direct competitive move yet against the CME and COMEX as established US commodity exchanges.
Robinhood Agrees to Exit Michigan Sports Contracts by October 9 — Court-Approved Deal Described as Blueprint
Robinhood Derivatives has agreed to stop offering new sports event contracts to Michigan customers by September 9 and close all outstanding positions by October 9, under a court-approved stipulation signed by US District Judge Paul Maloney on September 4. Michigan agreed not to enforce state gambling laws against Robinhood while the company complies. The deal preserves Robinhood's CEA preemption argument and keeps multiple Sixth Circuit appeals — involving Robinhood, Polymarket, Coinbase, and Kalshi — on track. Legal Sports Report called the agreement a potential 'blueprint' for how platforms and states might reach interim accommodations during the ongoing litigation.
Polymarket Launches 20x Leveraged Perpetual Futures Across 67 Markets — International Users Only
Polymarket launched Polymarket Perps on September 3 — a perpetual futures platform with up to 20x leverage across 67 markets covering crypto, individual stocks, equity indices, and commodities including oil and gold. The product is available to international users only; US traders are blocked under the same US-exclusion policy that separates Polymarket International from the CFTC-regulated Polymarket US. The launch moves Polymarket International into direct competition with Binance, Bybit, and dYdX in the crypto derivatives space, and represents the clearest signal yet that Polymarket's international business is evolving beyond binary prediction markets toward a full-service leveraged trading platform.