Robinhood Derivatives LLC has hit the curb in the lawsuit against the Nevada Gaming Control Board.

On November 25, 2025, Judge Andrew P Gordon of the Nevada District Court signed an order denying Robinhood’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Nevada regulators.

Robinhood had moved for a TRO to preclude the Board from pursuing Robinhood for civil or criminal penalties under Nevada law based on Robinhood allowing its Nevada customers to place trades for sports-related event contracts on Kalshi’s exchange. The Board opposed, arguing that Kalshi’s sports wagers do not fall within the statutory provision Robinhood relies on to invoke the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction and that the CFTC’s jurisdiction is not exclusive in any event.

The parties also dispute whether Robinhood will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a restraining order, as well as whether the balance of hardships and the public interest support or weigh against a restraining order.

To qualify for a TRO, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.

Alternatively, under the sliding scale approach, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) serious questions on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.

The Judge denied Robinhood’s motion for temporary restraining order because Robinhood has not met its burden of showing it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims.

The Judge explained that although Robinhood has shown serious questions on the merits, it has not met its burden to show that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor or that the public interest favors a TRO.

Robinhood’s concerns are essentially that it will not be able to profit from the trades, and that it will suffer some reputational harm if it cannot offer those contracts to Nevada residents or must close out contracts involving Nevada residents.

The Judge noted that Robinhood initially did not offer its Nevada customers the option of trading on Kalshi’s exchange after the Board announced that it sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter.

The Judge stated:

“Robinhood apparently made a business decision to again open trades to Nevada customers in August 2025. Robinhood thus has in a very real sense created its own harm if shutting down that business injures Robinhood’s reputation”.

Further, the Judge said that the CFTC has recently directed FCMs like Robinhood to warn customers about the various lawsuits and the risks those pose. As a result, Robinhood’s customers are on notice that offering gaming contracts is contrary to the CFTC’s regulation at 17 C.F.R. § 40.11(a) and that the legal landscape under which Kalshi and Robinhood have been operating could change depending on court rulings in the various lawsuits.

If customers continued trading in Kalshi’s products through Robinhood, they, like Robinhood and Kalshi, were proceeding at their own risk, the Judge said.

The Judge added:

“Robinhood’s harms are largely monetary. That harm can be mitigated through geofencing, which regulated entities in this jurisdiction employ. Robinhood may not be able to recover damages from the defendants if it later turns out that Robinhood can offer these contracts without violating Nevada law. But when balanced against the defendants’ interests, the balance of hardships does not tip sharply in Robinhood’s favor and the public interest does not support a TRO”.

The Judge concluded that “the balance of hardships does not tip sharply in Robinhood’s favor. Rather, the balance of hardships and the public interest weigh in favor of denying the temporary restraining order, so I deny Robinhood’s motion”.