Enforcement: How hard does the regulator enforce?

Montana's enforcement position this period is dominated by the Kalshi dispute. On August 27, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, under Judge Donald W. Molloy, denied Kalshi's motion for a preliminary injunction against Montana gambling officials, finding no irreparable harm shown and noting that Kalshi's own repeated agreement to stay the matter for months undermined its claim of urgency; that order lifted the existing case stay. On September 17, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the suit, with prejudice as to the five members of the Montana Lottery and Sports Wagering Commission and without prejudice as to the Attorney General and the Gambling Control Division, under which Montana agreed not to pursue enforcement against Kalshi's event contracts until Ninth Circuit en banc review concludes, with 30 days' notice required before resuming any enforcement action. The governing appellate backdrop is the Ninth Circuit's ruling in KalshiEX v. Assad (No. 25-7516, August 28, 2026), finding the Commodity Exchange Act does not preempt state gaming law as to sports event contracts. The practical revocation-and-enforcement risk for operators is tied to the outcome of that pending en banc review, not to any unqualified state position. No other enforcement events were identified this period, and the underlying court-filing record was not independently retrieved, relying instead on secondary legal-press coverage.