第六巡回法院裁定Kalshi败诉，俄亥俄与田纳西州可执行体育博彩法
Sixth Circuit Rules Against Kalshi, Lets Ohio and Tennessee Enforce Sports Betting Laws
Kalshi作为加密预测市场龙头，此判决直接否定了其“联邦CFTC监管优先于州赌博法”的核心商业逻辑，导致其在关键州失去法律保护伞。从业者需关注其对Kalshi业务扩张及同类协议合规性的实质性打击。
Kalshi has lost another major round in its fight to offer sports prediction markets nationwide.
Kalshi 在全国范围内提供体育预测市场的斗争中又遭遇了一次重大挫折。
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Kalshi has not shown its sports event contracts are swaps subject exclusively to Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulation.
第六巡回上诉法院周五裁定，Kalshi 未能证明其体育赛事合约属于仅受商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）监管的掉期合约。
Federal commodities law therefore does not prevent Ohio or Tennessee from enforcing their gambling laws against the company, the court held. The unanimous opinion, written by Senior Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, resolves appeals from conflicting lower-court decisions: an Ohio judge had denied Kalshi protection, while a Tennessee judge had granted it.
法院认为，因此联邦商品法并不阻止俄亥俄州或田纳西州对该公司执行其赌博法律。由资深法官朱莉娅·史密斯·吉本斯撰写的全体一致意见，解决了来自下级法院冲突判决的上诉：一名俄亥俄州法官曾拒绝为 Kalshi 提供保护，而一名田纳西州法官则给予了保护。
That makes the decision particularly consequential. The Sixth Circuit did not just add another loss to Kalshi’s docket. It took two states that had received opposite answers in federal district court and gave them the same answer on appeal. On the showing Kalshi made here, CFTC registration does not keep state gambling regulators out.
这使得该裁决尤为关键。第六巡回上诉法院不仅给 Kalshi 的败诉记录增添了一笔，还将两个在联邦地区法院获得相反答案的州，在上诉中给出了相同的答案。就 Kalshi 在此案中提出的主张而言，CFTC 注册并不能将州赌博监管机构排除在外。
Two states, one appellate answer
两个州，一个上诉法院的答案
Kalshi’s legal theory has underpinned its national sports business. It argues that its contracts trade on a federally regulated exchange, qualify as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and fall under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction, not the licensing systems states apply to sportsbooks.
Kalshi 的法律理论是其全国体育业务的基础。它辩称，其合约在受联邦监管的交易所上交易，符合《商品交易法》下掉期合约的定义，并属于 CFTC 的专属管辖范围，而非各州对体育博彩公司适用的许可制度。
Ohio and Tennessee argue that contracts on sporting outcomes remain subject to their gambling laws regardless of the exchange on which they trade.
俄亥俄州和田纳西州则认为，无论合约在哪个交易所交易，针对体育结果的合约仍受其赌博法律的约束。
The district courts split. In Tennessee, Kalshi won a preliminary injunction blocking state enforcement while its case proceeded. In Ohio, it failed to obtain one. Friday’s Sixth Circuit decision rules against Kalshi on the central federal preemption question in both disputes, allowing the states to pursue enforcement.
地区法院对此存在分歧。在田纳西州，Kalshi 赢得了初步禁令，阻止了州政府在其案件审理期间的执法行动；而在俄亥俄州，它未能获得此类禁令。周五的第六巡回上诉法院裁决在这两起争议的核心联邦优先权问题上均不利于 Kalshi，允许各州继续推进执法。
That does not mean every Kalshi contract has been finally adjudicated illegal. This is litigation over preliminary relief and whether federal law blocks state action, not a final judgment resolving every potential state-law violation. But the immediate legal shield Kalshi sought is gone in Tennessee and remains unavailable in Ohio.
这并不意味着 Kalshi 的所有合约最终都被判定为非法。本案诉讼涉及的是初步救济以及联邦法律是否阻止州行动，而非解决所有潜在州法违规行为的最终判决。但 Kalshi 寻求的直接法律保护伞在田纳西州已消失，在俄亥俄州也依然无法获得。
The appellate map turns against Kalshi
上诉地图对 Kalshi 不利
The ruling deepens a conflict that is already on the United States Supreme Court’s doorstep.
这一裁决加剧了一场已经触及美国最高法院门槛的冲突。
The Third Circuit sided with Kalshi in its New Jersey case in April, concluding at the preliminary stage that sports event contracts qualify as swaps and that federal law likely preempts New Jersey’s gambling enforcement. The Ninth Circuit reached the opposite result in Nevada in August, holding that Kalshi’s sports contracts are likely not swaps and allowing Nevada to regulate them under state gaming law. The Sixth Circuit has now joined the states’ side of that dispute in the Ohio and Tennessee cases.
今年4月，第三巡回上诉法院在新泽西州案件中支持了Kalshi，在初步阶段得出结论认为体育事件合约符合互换合约的定义，且联邦法律可能优先于新泽西州的赌博执法。8月，第九巡回上诉法院在内华达州案件得出了相反结论，认定Kalshi的体育合约可能不属于互换合约，并允许内华达州依据州博彩法对其进行监管。如今，第六巡回上诉法院也在俄亥俄州和田纳西州的案件中加入了各州一方，参与了这场争议。
A separate tribal gaming front also exists. Last week, the Ninth Circuit held that two California tribes are likely to succeed in arguing that Kalshi sports contracts entered from their lands constitute unauthorized Class III gaming under federal law. That court sent the case back for the district judge to consider the remaining preliminary injunction factors. It did not issue an injunction itself.
此外还存在一个独立的部落博彩前沿阵地。上周，第九巡回上诉法院裁定，加利福尼亚州两个部落很可能成功主张：从其领地内签订的Kalshi体育合约构成联邦法律下的未经授权的第III类博彩。该法院将案件发回地区法官，要求考虑剩余的先令禁令因素。法院本身并未发布禁令。
The Supreme Court question grows
最高法院的问题日益凸显
New Jersey has petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit ruling that favored Kalshi. Its request initially centered on the direct disagreement between the Third and Ninth Circuits over sports contracts and federal preemption. Friday’s Sixth Circuit decision makes the national divide harder to ignore: Kalshi has a favorable appellate ruling in one circuit and adverse rulings in two others.
新泽西州已请愿最高法院审查有利于Kalshi的第三巡回上诉法院裁决。其请求最初聚焦于第三巡回和第九巡回上诉法院在体育合约及联邦法律优先权问题上的直接分歧。周五的第六巡回上诉法院裁决使得全国性的分歧更难被忽视：Kalshi在一个巡回区获得了有利的上诉裁决，而在另外两个巡回区则面临不利裁决。
The justices have not agreed to hear the New Jersey case. Kalshi can also seek further review of the Sixth Circuit decision. For now, though, the company's practical problem is immediate: its claim to a single federal rule for sports event contracts is colliding with appellate decisions that leave states free to act.
大法官们尚未同意审理新泽西州的案件。Kalshi也可以寻求对第六巡回上诉法院裁决进行进一步审查。不过目前，该公司面临的实际问题迫在眉睫：它关于体育事件合约应适用单一联邦规则的主张，正与允许各州自由行动的上诉裁决发生冲突。
Kalshi built its sports markets around the proposition that a CFTC-regulated exchange can list contracts nationwide. The Third Circuit accepted that argument at the preliminary stage. The Sixth and Ninth Circuits have not. Until the Supreme Court or Congress supplies a national answer, the business increasingly faces the state-by-state map it has been fighting to avoid.
Kalshi围绕一个命题构建了其体育市场：由商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）监管的交易所可以在全国范围内列出合约。第三巡回上诉法院在初步阶段接受了这一论点。第六和第九巡回上诉法院则未予接受。在最高法院或国会提供全国性答案之前，该公司的业务越来越不得不面对它一直努力避免的各州地图式局面。
更进一步：量化金融体系
看懂新闻只是起点——沿量化金融路径，把它变成能交付的工程能力