The Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) announced Monday that a state court granted its motion for a preliminary injunction against Polymarket. The ruling marked the latest legal victory for the state against prediction market operators.
According to an NGCB press release, Judge Woodbury of Nevada’s First Judicial District Court granted the motion on May 29. A written order is forthcoming.
We are very pleased with Judge Woodbury’s ruling and will continue to vigorously enforce Nevada law to safeguard gaming in our state,” said NGCB Chairman Mike Dreitzer.
The Board noted that it has taken action in recent months against multiple prediction market operators. It added that it has “successfully restricted the operation of all unlicensed prediction markets that had been known to be operating in Nevada.”
Court Victories Against Kalshi, Coinbase, Robinhood, Crypto.com
The Polymarket ruling marks Nevada’s latest courtroom victory against prediction market operators.
The NGCB previously secured preliminary injunctions against Kalshi in April and Coinbase in March. Meanwhile, Crypto.com and Robinhood agreed to stop offering sports event contracts in the state in late 2025. The decisions resulted from the courts’ rejection of their motions for a preliminary injunction against the regulator.
The core of the NGCB’s argument is that sports event contracts and certain other event contracts constitute wagering activity under state law and that the exchanges need licenses to offer them.
State courts have sided with the regulator in all cases. Judges have ruled that event contracts constitute gambling under Nevada law and that the regulator will likely succeed on its merits.
Ninth Circuit Appeal Continues
While Nevada continues to secure victories in state court, a separate consolidated federal appeal involving Kalshi, Robinhood, and Crypto.com remains pending before the Ninth Circuit.
The case centers on whether the Commodity Exchange Act grants the CFTC exclusive authority over event contracts traded on prediction markets. Another argument is whether the Act preempts Nevada’s efforts to enforce its gaming laws against prediction market operators.
During oral arguments in April, a Ninth Circuit panel appeared skeptical of the companies’ arguments that federal law entirely bars state enforcement.
The panel pressed prediction markets on whether sports-event contracts are effectively sports betting. They questioned why states would be prevented from enforcing their own gambling laws if such contracts fall within traditional state regulatory authority.
A decision from the Ninth Circuit could have implications beyond Nevada.
Earlier this year, the Third Circuit ruled in Kalshi’s favor in its dispute with New Jersey. If the Ninth Circuit sides with Nevada, states challenging prediction market operators will likely point to the ruling in litigation across the country.
If it rules in favor of the companies, prediction market operators could gain additional support for their argument that federal commodities law preempts state gaming enforcement.
