4 min read ·
Which States Ban Kalshi or Polymarket? Restrictions vs. Lawsuits
Compare Kalshi restrictions in Nevada, Michigan and Washington, Polymarket US enforcement, and the difference between an injunction and a lawsuit.
There is no single state-ban list that applies to both platforms. The cited records establish court-ordered Kalshi restrictions in Nevada, Michigan and Washington, covering different contract categories. Nevada also announced an injunction against Polymarket US. Massachusetts secured a Kalshi sports-contract injunction, but the latest cited case snapshot reports that it is stayed pending appeal—not equivalent to an operating ban.
There is also a separate nationwide access restriction: Polymarket’s international exchange does not allow new positions from the United States, regardless of state. Its developer documentation lists the US as close-only on both the website and API: users can close existing positions but cannot open new ones. That is distinct from Polymarket US. Polymarket geographic rules
Reviewed October 9, 2026. The records below describe restrictions and legal posture, not a guarantee of current account eligibility.
States with court restrictions—and the Massachusetts exception
“Ban” can mean a restriction on sports contracts, a broader restriction on several categories, or a court order that has been paused. Those distinctions matter more than a simple red-or-green map.
| State | Platform affected by the cited action | Contracts covered | What the record establishes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada | Kalshi | Sports, elections and entertainment | A May 18 preliminary injunction prohibited covered contracts within Nevada. A July enforcement agreement required third-party geofencing, with an August 12 implementation deadline. Nevada Gaming Control Board |
| Nevada | Polymarket US, operated by QCX LLC | Sports, elections and entertainment | The attorney general’s June 3 announcement said a judge would grant a preliminary injunction prohibiting covered contracts while enforcement continued; the written order was forthcoming at that announcement. Nevada attorney general |
| Michigan | Kalshi | Sports | A September preliminary injunction requires geofencing to block Michigan residents and people within the state from covered contracts. Michigan attorney general |
| Washington | Kalshi | Sports, elections, politics, entertainment, culture, tech and science, and mentions | An injunction requires geofencing and prohibits advertising covered wagers to Washington consumers. It does not cover every Kalshi product. Washington attorney general |
| Massachusetts | Kalshi | Unlicensed sports event contracts | According to a case tracker’s September 27 snapshot, the injunction is stayed pending Supreme Judicial Court review, with no decision yet issued and continued in-state operation pending appeal. Dated case status |
The Michigan and Washington entries establish restrictions on Kalshi. They should not automatically be copied into a Polymarket US availability list. Likewise, Nevada’s actions concern specified categories; “the entire platform is banned” is a broader claim.
Lawsuits and cease-and-desist demands are not the same as a court ban
Other states have pursued enforcement. These actions are consequential, but announcing a lawsuit does not establish that an injunction has taken effect or that every user has been geoblocked.
- New York: The state announced lawsuits against Kalshi in July and Polymarket US in September. The Polymarket announcement seeks a court order stopping allegedly unlicensed gambling operations, along with financial remedies. It establishes a request for a shutdown—not that a shutdown order was granted. New York announcement
- Missouri: The attorney general issued cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Polymarket and four other operators, demanding that they stop offering sports event contracts unless licensed by the Missouri Gaming Commission and threatening enforcement for noncompliance. That is a state enforcement demand, not itself a court judgment banning every prediction-market category. Missouri announcement
- Connecticut: The state announced its Kalshi lawsuit on August 26, seeking an injunction against unlicensed sports wagers. The announcement also describes earlier cease-and-desist orders and a federal judge’s denial of Kalshi’s request to block enforcement. Neither fact establishes that the state had obtained the shutdown injunction it was seeking. Connecticut lawsuit
These are examples, not an exhaustive list of state disputes. A September 25 Sixth Circuit ruling also changed the position in Ohio and Tennessee: it rejected Kalshi’s preemption arguments and vacated an injunction shielding Kalshi from Tennessee enforcement. That does not by itself establish a same-day customer-access cutoff. Legal analysis of the ruling
Why federal regulation does not settle the map
The dispute is whether sports event contracts are federally regulated instruments protected from state gambling enforcement, or products states can regulate under their gaming laws. Courts have split: the Third Circuit ruled for Kalshi in the New Jersey dispute, while the Ninth and Sixth Circuits rejected its preemption position in other disputes. CFTC registration is therefore not a reliable shortcut to “available in all 50 states.” Analysis of the circuit split
Before funding an account, check the exact venue—Kalshi, Polymarket US or international Polymarket—and the exact contract category. Confirm whether a restriction prevents new orders, affects existing positions, or leaves withdrawals available. An app opening successfully is not a legal determination.
For forecast research, record venue, category and access restrictions alongside the price timestamp. A participation restriction could change who supplies liquidity; it does not establish that the resulting odds are more or less accurate. That requires outcome-based evaluation, as explained in Brier score versus calibration.