Notorious US prediction platform Polymarket will not be allowed to operate in Nevada until after the 2026 Super Bowl, following a court-issued temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt events contracts operations for two weeks.
State lawmakers argue that Polymarket's sports-based events contracts are the same as sports betting. As Polymarket does not carry a sports gambling license, lawyers say the platform breaks local regulations and must be ousted as a result.
That lawsuit included a request for a temporary injunction against Polymarket, which was given the green light on January 29.
Therefore, the operator will be barred from offering Super Bowl prediction markets. Although markedly limited compared to its international sibling, and does not yet support NFL markets, this ruling pauses any plans within Polymarket to supply options for the 'Big Game'.
The decision to enforce a TRO continues a broadening trend of anti-prediction maneuvers from states. Kalshi, another notable sports derivatives company, has faced similar challenges in the US.
Two-week ban precedes final hearing
The initial complaint, filed against Polymarket's parent company Blockratize on January 16, described sports prediction markets as being "the same" as traditional online sports betting.
Mobile sports betting has been available in Nevada since 2010, when it became the first state to debut internet-based sports wagering.
In Nevada, all sportsbooks must acquire a license to provide sports betting services. As Polymarket has not sought state-specific certification and publishes sports-adjacent 'yes' and 'no' contract options, lawmakers believe the organization should be taken down for operating illegally.
The NGCB expects that this lawsuit will see Polymarket retreat from the local market via a preliminary injunction.
That anticipation reached boiling point on January 29, when Judge Jason D. Woodbury granted a 14-day injunction favoring the state's gambling control board.
While this decision does not guarantee victory for Nevada, the court order acknowledged that the case presented by the NGCB was "reasonably likely" to win.
A final hearing is due to take place on February 11 – where the court may announce a more permanent injunction against Polymarket.
Why a temporary injunction?
Judge Woodbury concluded that a temporary injunction is the most appropriate course of action following almost two weeks of review.
The decision to temporarily prevent Polymarket from serving Nevada customers was influenced by a belief that, if the NGCB's complaints are wholly accurate, Polymarket's services pose a tangible danger to local consumers and the wider industry:
"The record at this early stage in proceedings indicates Polymarket offers 'event-based contracts' that relate to sporting and other events, including college basketball games, college and professional football games and elections", said the court order document.
Expanding on the TRO, the order explains that each additional day that Polymarket operates increases industry risk:
"A day means more consumers. More consumers means more transactions. More transactions means more potential harm to the board. As such, every day matters in this case in a literal sense."
The order also outlined that it "exacerbates with each day that Polymarket operates in Nevada outside the authority of the board."
Thus, Judge Woodbury opted to restrict Polymarket's in-state functionality ahead of a final ruling on February 11.
Polymarket plots resistance despite immediate compliance
As reported on X by gambling lawyer Daniel Wallach, Polymarket pulled its Nevada services offline by January 31 by geo-blocking users physically located in the state.
Yet, as broadcasted on its website, the operator plans to counter the temporary order:
"Polymarket is challenging this temporary order in court. We love building with you and we hope to continue doing so in the near future. We're committed to seeing this through and to reopening as soon as we're allowed to do so."
At the time of writing, Polymarket has yet to produce a challenge against this legal order.
First legal action for Polymarket since 2022
Polymarket has mostly avoided legal controversy since returning to the US market in late 2025, with the NGCB lawsuit being the operator's first court battle on American soil for four years.
In 2022, it was forced to depart the US following accusations that it had operated unregistered derivatives to domestic users. A $1.4m settlement with the CFTC was agreed, and Polymarket ceased operations.
But the inauguration of President Donald Trump in January 2025 was accompanied by a revised, relaxed political stance toward online contract-based derivatives. For Polymarket, this meant that a then-ongoing investigation into its controversial US operations was concluded without further punishment.
Moreover, President Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jnr, joined Polymarket's advisory board in August 2025.
In turn, this latest NGCB action represents more than a simple challenge of Polymarket itself, but also of modern viewpoints held by the White House and its affiliate partners.
Nevada setting clear boundaries amid prediction platforms' rise
Last year, Nevada became the first state to attempt to topple prediction market vendors by submitting a cease-and-desist letter to prominent operator, Kalshi.
Kalshi presented a counter-offensive – successfully suing the NGCB and securing a preliminary injunction against Nevada. That ruling allowed Kalshi to continue operating in the state throughout the hearing.
Then came November 2025, when Judge Anthony Gordon (the same judge who issued the preliminary injunction against the NGCB) revoked his initial decision. Kalshi could now be legally blocked from operating in Nevada, in what Judge Woodbury has described as a "persuasive" review of circumstances.
Any ruling could have nationwide impact
Judge Woodbury's final decision on February 11 – be it in favor of the NGCB or Polymarket – will influence the nationwide market.
Should the outcome lend itself to the NGCB's cause, lawmakers in other anti-predictions states will likely draw up similar legal proceedings. Support already exists in this arena, highlighted by the fact that 27 states signed an amicus brief backing Nevada's case against Polymarket.
In the unlikely event that Polymarket escapes unscathed, it will reinforce a growing sentiment that legislators are not only powerless to prevent the rapid ascension of sports exchange trading but that CFTC regulation preempts all state frameworks.
