Why Kalshi Filed En Banc While Robinhood Filed at the Supreme Court
Two filings, two courts, one coordinated strategy. Kalshi asked the full 9th Circuit for rehearing on September 9; Robinhood went straight to the Supreme Court. Legal analysts describe this as a deliberate tag-team approach — here's what each filing means and how they fit together.
Why Did Kalshi and Robinhood File in Different Courts on the Same Ruling?
Two weeks after the 9th Circuit ruled against sports event contracts, the platforms responded with a coordinated two-front strategy. Kalshi asked the full 9th Circuit to rehear the case. Robinhood went straight to the Supreme Court. Gaming law attorney Daniel Wallach, who tracks prediction market litigation, describes this as a deliberate tag-team approach — one designed to maximize the odds of reversing the ruling on at least one front.
The Ruling They're Fighting
Two federal appeals courts reached opposite conclusions on the same legal question. That conflict is the foundation of New Jersey's and Robinhood's Supreme Court arguments.
What Each Company Filed
9th Circuit En Banc Petition
What Kalshi is asking
Full rehearing by approximately 11 judges, rather than the 3-judge panel. Kalshi argues the panel's ruling is internally inconsistent: the court agreed the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over DCM-listed instruments, then said states can regulate sports contracts the CFTC approved for those same exchanges.
“Kalshi now stands exposed to civil and criminal liability even though it is abiding by federal law and the mandate of its exclusive federal regulator.”
SCOTUS Cert Petition
What Robinhood is asking
Petition for writ of certiorari on the same preemption question raised by New Jersey's Sept. 2 petition. Robinhood requests SCOTUS consolidate both petitions and grant expedited review, presenting two different angles on the same legal question — government enforcement (NJ) and commercial platform (Robinhood).
Note: Robinhood has a separate, unrelated SCOTUS matter (Robinhood v. Sodha, an IPO securities case). This prediction markets cert petition is a distinct filing.
Why the Two-Track Approach?
Analysis attributed to gaming law attorney Daniel Wallach (@WALLACHLEGAL), who tracks prediction market litigation. Wallach has no disclosed commercial relationship with Kalshi or Robinhood.
Why Kalshi Chose En Banc
An en banc petition automatically keeps the case active inside the 9th Circuit while the petition is pending, buying operational time before the ruling becomes fully enforceable across 9th Circuit states.
Lets Robinhood and New Jersey carry the Supreme Court vehicle — where their commercial-stakes and government-enforcement angles may present a stronger case for cert.
If en banc is granted, the 9th Circuit could reverse without SCOTUS involvement at all — the cleanest possible outcome.
If en banc is denied, Kalshi retains the option to file its own SCOTUS cert petition — making three separate petitions pressing the same question, which makes the Court more likely to grant review.
Why Robinhood Filed Cert Now
Adds real-world commercial standing alongside New Jersey's government enforcement angle — two petitions pressing the same question from different legal postures is stronger than one.
Requesting consolidation with the NJ petition creates a single vehicle for SCOTUS to accept. The Court can address both at the same conference rather than granting two separate petitions.
Filing now (rather than waiting for en banc to resolve) keeps SCOTUS pressure on a parallel track — if Kalshi wins en banc, Robinhood can withdraw. If Kalshi loses, the cert vehicle is already in place.
What This Means for Sports Contract Access by State
The en banc petition does not restore sports contract access immediately. While it is pending, 9th Circuit states retain authority to enforce their gaming laws against prediction market platforms offering sports contracts.
9th Circuit States — Current Status
What Happens Next
Editorial estimates based on typical appellate timelines. Not guaranteed court dates.
New Jersey AG filed the first cert petition at SCOTUS, pressing the 3rd/9th Circuit split.
Kalshi petitioned the full 9th Circuit. Robinhood filed a separate SCOTUS cert petition, requesting consolidation with NJ's.
The 9th Circuit votes internally on whether to grant full-court rehearing. SCOTUS holds conferences to decide whether to take the cert petitions.
Approximately — the Court sets its own schedule. A decision would typically follow within that term.
Approximate. The Court's decision would resolve the preemption question nationally — binding on all circuits.
What Traders Should Know
Sports contract availability depends on your state and your platform — confirm at your platform's official site before placing any trade.
No court has issued a nationwide ban on prediction markets or sports event contracts. Restrictions are state-by-state and vary by platform.
En banc petitions and cert petitions are routine appellate steps — neither is a victory. Both courts could deny.
Non-sports markets (elections, economics, weather) are on different legal ground. The 9th Circuit opinion explicitly remanded election contracts for further review.
The CFTC is separately pursuing a rulemaking that would amend the special rule on gaming contracts — agency action could change the legal record before any court ruling.
Confirm current sports contract access at your platform's official help center — not from news coverage or aggregator sites.
Frequently Asked Questions
Primary Sources
Official 9th Circuit docket; en banc petition filed September 9, 2026.
Third Circuit ruling holding federal preemption — the split NJ and Robinhood are pressing at SCOTUS.
NJ AG's petition; Robinhood filed a separate petition Sept. 9–10. Check scotus.gov for current dockets.
CFTC's regulatory authority over DCMs — the basis of Kalshi's federal preemption argument.
Official NJ AG press release confirming the first cert petition in this litigation.
Tier-2 press (Law360, Ars Technica, NPR, Sportico, The Hill) used as corroboration only. All factual claims trace to primary sources above.
Editorial disclosure: PredictionMarkets.US has no commercial relationship with Kalshi, Robinhood, or any party to this litigation. This page is an independent editorial summary. It is not legal advice. Confirm your state's current status and your platform's current offerings at that platform's official site.
Related Guides
What the Circuit Split Means for Traders
The 3rd vs. 9th Circuit split explained — and what each outcome means for access by state.
Will SCOTUS Hear the Prediction Markets Case?
How cert petitions work, the NJ filing, and three possible outcomes.
9th Circuit Ruling: What Traders Need to Know
The August 28 ruling that started this two-track response — explained.
State-by-State Legality Map
Your state's current status across all major prediction market platforms.