Kalshi asks Missouri federal court for a TRO after the state refused to pause sports-contract enforcement

Kalshi has asked a St. Louis federal judge to freeze Missouri’s threatened enforcement of sports-wagering rules against its sports event contracts, after the state declined to wait for a preliminary-injunction hearing.

According to the CourtListener docket for KalshiEX LLC v. Hanaway, No. 4:26-cv-01860 (E.D. Mo., Judge Maria A. Lanahan), Kalshi filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on November 6, 2026 (ECF 19), requesting a hearing within 14 days, and the same day sought leave to file an oversized supporting memorandum (ECF 20). The complaint, filed October 27, says Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway sent a cease-and-desist letter on September 16, 2026, that her office extended the compliance deadline on October 15 to October 30, and that Missouri’s Solicitor General told Kalshi on October 27 the office could not agree to withhold enforcement. Kalshi sued the same day.

What the September 16 letter demanded

The cease-and-desist letter published by the Missouri Attorney General’s Office tells Kalshi either to stop offering sports wagering to people in Missouri or to obtain a Missouri Gaming Commission licence, pay state taxes and fees, and stop serving people under 21. It cites Missouri’s 10% sports-wagering tax on adjusted gross revenue and licence fees of up to $500,000, and says Kalshi’s member agreement allows wagering at the age of majority (18 in Missouri) while state rules impose an affirmative duty to prevent under-21 wagers. The complaint adds that Class E felony provisions and administrative fines of $50,000 per violation or $100,000 per occurrence are among the enforcement tools Missouri asserts.

Kalshi’s theory is that the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over contracts on a designated contract market, so Missouri’s sports-wagering and gambling statutes are preempted as applied. The prayer seeks a declaratory judgment covering Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 513.660, 572.010–572.070 and 407.020, Mo. Const. art. III § 39(g), and 11 C.S.R. 45-20.010 et seq., plus TRO, preliminary and permanent injunctions. Claims in the complaint are allegations; no ruling on the TRO or consolidation motion appears on the public docket through November 7–8 filings mirrored on CourtListener.

Consolidation with Novig and counsel

On November 5, Missouri defendants filed a notice that they had moved in Ludlow Exchange, LLC v. Hanaway, No. 4:26-cv-01780 — Novig’s operator’s October 16 challenge before Judge Catherine D. Perry — to consolidate that case with Kalshi’s (ECF 17). A November 6 minute order granted Kalshi’s pro hac vice motions (ECF 18), including for Neal Katyal of Milbank. AskSpinner’s prediction-market litigation tracker already lists the Missouri complaint as PML-032; this article covers the November TRO filing and the primary cease-and-desist letter. Related coverage includes Kalshi’s Louisiana suit and the Second Circuit’s denial of injunctions against New York and Connecticut.