Robinhood Opposes Injunction in Ho-Chunk Nation Lawsuit Over Kalshi Sports Contracts

Robinhood has filed an opposition to a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by the Ho-Chunk Nation against KalshiEx LLC and Kalshi Inc.

Court filings submitted on January 20, 2026, to the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin show that Robinhood Derivatives, LLC and Robinhood Markets, Inc. argue that an injunction would cause substantial and irreparable harm to their federally authorised event contract business.

Robinhood contends that preventing Kalshi from offering sports-related event contracts on Indian lands would disrupt its operations, as the firm relies on Kalshi’s designated contract market (DCM) to facilitate customer trades. The company also argues that such an order would undermine the existing federal regulatory framework.

According to the filing, an injunction could force Kalshi to suspend sports-related event contracts nationwide for months while assessing whether a geofencing solution is feasible. Robinhood adds that even if such measures were developed, Kalshi could still face challenges offering contracts in parts of Wisconsin outside tribal lands due to the small size and irregular boundaries of some Indian lands.

Robinhood says either outcome would directly affect its business. As a futures commission merchant (FCM), it cannot process customer event contract orders without access to a DCM. Kalshi is one of only two DCMs through which Robinhood supports sports-related event contract trading.

Without access to Kalshi’s exchange, Robinhood says it would be required to cancel customer orders, liquidate open positions, and suspend trading indefinitely. The company argues this would result in significant customer losses and reputational damage.

The filing states that more than 10,000 Robinhood customers in Wisconsin have traded over 100 million sports-related event contracts, with most of the volume executed on Kalshi’s exchange. Robinhood notes that national trading volumes are higher and that affected customers also trade other products, including equities, options, and cryptocurrencies.

Robinhood further argues that geofencing, as proposed by the plaintiff, is not currently viable. The company says it cannot reliably determine whether users are located on Indian lands, as customers may place trades, travel, and hold contracts across multiple locations. Existing tools rely on self-reported addresses and IP-based location data, which the firm says is accurate only within several miles.

Given the small size and proximity of some Indian lands to surrounding towns, Robinhood argues that IP-based restrictions would either be ineffective or exclude customers in nearby non-tribal areas. The company adds that it does not currently use device-level GPS geofencing, and developing such capabilities would take months, incur significant costs, and require users to consent to location data sharing.