Nevada pushes appeals court to reject Polymarket bid pause request
Nevada regulators are urging a federal appeals court to keep a fast-moving gambling case on track, arguing Polymarket has no solid basis to press pause while it challenges where the case should be heard.
In a new filing to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, lawyers for the Nevada Gaming Control Board say the dispute is a state compliance issue tied to alleged unlicensed betting activity. They want judges to reject Polymarket’s emergency request to halt proceedings after a lower court sent the case back to state court.
“This is a state enforcement action,” the filing states, describing how regulators sued Polymarket for offering sports and event-based betting in Nevada without complying with licensing rules.
The legal fight dates back to January 2026, when Nevada first took action against the prediction market platform. Regulators accused the company of running event-based wagering products without approval and sought to shut those offerings down.
A state judge initially granted a temporary restraining order, siding with regulators who argued the platform’s contracts likely violated Nevada gambling law. The court also pointed to risks tied to underage access and missing consumer safeguards.
How the Polymarket case moved between courts in Nevada amid appeal
Polymarket quickly shifted the fight into federal court, claiming its operations fall under federal oversight and that national law overrides Nevada’s rules.
However, a federal district judge rejected the company’s position and ordered the case sent back to Nevada courts. Now Polymarket is appealing that decision and asking the Ninth Circuit to freeze everything while the appeal plays out.
Nevada’s response was that the request doesn’t meet the legal standard for a pause.
On jurisdiction, the state says Polymarket is stretching its federal argument too far. Being regulated at the federal level, regulators argue, doesn’t mean the company is “acting under the direction of a federal officer simply because it is regulated” by a federal agency.
They also push back on the idea that federal law transforms the case into a federal dispute. “The Board’s complaint asserts only state-law claims,” the state wrote, adding that a federal preemption argument “does not create federal-question jurisdiction.”
The filing also leans on earlier rulings to argue Polymarket won’t suffer meaningful harm by continuing in state court. As it puts it, “a party is not irreparably injured by having to litigate in state court as opposed to federal court.”
Regulators say the real risk runs in the opposite direction. The state court previously warned that Polymarket’s operations could expose minors to gambling and bypass required protections, harms it said “cannot be mitigated” after they occur.
The concern is said to build with time. As the state court put it: “A day means more consumers. More consumers mean more transactions. More transactions means more potential harm.”
Nevada argues that imbalance should decide the outcome, urging the appeals court to deny the request and let the enforcement case continue without delay.
Featured image: Polymarket / Canva
The post Nevada pushes appeals court to reject Polymarket bid pause request appeared first on ReadWrite.