Will the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rule vacates or reverses, in whole or in part and on any ground including ripeness, the preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Act 174 of 2024's foreign-ownership restrictions on digital asset mining businesses? — Before 2027

- [2024-12-09] The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Chief Judge Kristine G. Baker) granted Jones Eagle's request for a preliminary injunction and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss, enjoining Secretary Ward and Attorney General Griffin from enforcing any provision of Act 636 or Act 174 against Jones Eagle until further order of the court. (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/67679616818b345f27ef3c1b) - [2025-01-13] Arkansas (Ward, Griffin, State of Arkansas) filed its notice of appeal, docketed as Eighth Circuit Case No. 25-1047 , with briefing scheduled through spring 2025. (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca8/25-1047) - [2026-01-14] The Eighth Circuit panel — Circuit Judges Bobby Shepherd, Lane Kelly and David Stras — heard oral argument in Jones Eagle v. Ward; judges quickly pivoted to ripeness, questioning whether Jones Eagle's claims were ready for federal review given an ongoing state subpoena, and Arkansas's counsel responded that the subpoena was "not self-executing" and issued under a different statute . (https://www.courthousenews.com/arkansas-defends-ban-on-foreign-owned-farmland-and-digital-assets/) - [2026-01-14] At argument, Arkansas's counsel also suggested abstention might apply, noting a pending state enforcement proceeding where constitutional issues could be raised , while Jones Eagle argued the state had already waived abstention and urged affirmance on preemption grounds. (https://www.courthousenews.com/arkansas-defends-ban-on-foreign-owned-farmland-and-digital-assets/) - [2026-01-30] Meanwhile, in the parallel district-court proceedings (merits phase, unaffected by the pending appeal of the injunction), Judge Baker issued a lengthy discovery order, 2026 WL 25290, compelling production in the litigation. (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arkansas/aredce/4:2024cv00990/145642/91/) - [2026-03-05/03-12] District court docket activity continued on discovery disputes, sanctions motions, and subpoenas unrelated to the Eighth Circuit appeal, with the district court record on appeal separately transmitted. (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69372761/jones-eagle-llc-v-ward/) - [2026-06-09] A legal tracker (CryptoSlate) last verified that as of June 9, 2026, enforcement of Act 174 and Rule K remains preliminarily enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas pending further court action , with no indication the Eighth Circuit had yet ruled. (https://cryptoslate.com/crypto-laws/arkansas-digital-asset-mining-ownership-restrictions/) - [2026-10-09 (today)] No subsequent news, docket entry, or published opinion from the Eighth Circuit in No. 25-1047 was found; searches for an issued opinion, vacatur, or reversal in Jones Eagle v. Ward through October 2026 returned no results — the case appears to remain under submission roughly nine months after oral argument. BOTTOM LINE: As of October 9, 2026, the Eighth Circuit has heard oral argument (Jan. 14, 2026) but has not yet issued any written opinion, order, or judgment in Jones Eagle v. Ward; the panel's pointed questioning on ripeness/abstention signals a real possibility of vacatur on that ground, but no ruling has issued yet, and the question's resolution depends entirely on a decision being handed down before Feb. 1, 2027. NOT FOUND: Any published Eighth Circuit opinion, order, or docket entry disposing of appeal No. 25-1047 after the Jan. 14, 2026 oral argument; any indication of an expected decision date; confirmation of the current PACER docket status beyond early 2026 snapshots (direct CourtListener/PACER access was blocked).

- [2024-12-09] The Eastern District of Arkansas (Chief Judge Kristine Baker) issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Act 174 (and Act 636) against Jones Eagle LLC, finding the state laws likely preempted by federal law. https://www.cato.org/legal-briefs/jones-eagle-v-ward - [2025-01-13] Arkansas state officials appealed the preliminary injunction to the Eighth Circuit (docket 0:25-cv-01047 / case originates from 4:24-cv-00990). https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/56516612/Jones_Eagle_LLC_v_Wes_Ward,_et_al - [2026-01-14] Oral argument was held before an Eighth Circuit panel of Judges Bobby Shepherd, Jane Kelly and David Stras; attorneys clashed over whether Arkansas laws restricting foreign ownership of farmland and digital asset mining operations encroach on federal authority, with the injunction blocking enforcement of Acts 636 and 174 at stake . Judges reportedly focused heavily on ripeness and abstention questions during argument, consistent with the question's explicit inclusion of "ripeness" as a qualifying ground for reversal. https://www.courthousenews.com/arkansas-defends-ban-on-foreign-owned-farmland-and-digital-assets/ - [2026-06-09] As of this "last verified" date, a legal tracker confirms "Status: Effective statute; enforcement of Act 174 and Rule K is preliminarily enjoined" — i.e., no Eighth Circuit ruling had yet issued roughly five months after argument. - [Undated, pre-2022 data] Internal Operating Procedures: "The court strives to issue all opinions within ninety days after argument." This is an aspirational, not binding, target and constitutional/preemption cases with multiple complex issues (preemption, standing, ripeness, abstention) often exceed it. - [2023-era data] Separate empirical summaries: the Eighth Circuit's average for all cases is 4.6 months, including 4.5 months between briefing and oral argument, and then another 3.9 months from oral argument to decision — the fastest among circuits studied. Applying this to a Jan. 14, 2026 argument suggests a decision plausibly around April–June 2026, though complex multi-issue constitutional appeals (as this is) historically run longer than the average simple appeal. - [Base rate, district-to-circuit] the Eighth Circuit's overall reversal rate usually hovers around 5%, much less than any other circuit, a pattern in place for decades — this is the share of all district-court merits dispositions reversed by the Eighth Circuit, the most relevant outside-view reference class for "will the circuit vacate/reverse this specific type of order." - [Base rate, nuance] That ~5% figure covers all appeals (criminal and civil combined, many summarily affirmed); civil appeals and preliminary-injunction appeals from district courts tend to have meaningfully higher reversal/vacatur rates than the circuit-wide average because they are more often argued and more substantively contested, but no Eighth-Circuit-specific preliminary-injunction reversal rate was found in available sources. - [Base rate, SCOTUS proxy, not directly relevant but contextual] Since 2007, SCOTUS has decided 56 cases originating from the Eighth Circuit, affirming in 14 cases and reversing in 42, for a reversal rate of 75 percent — this pertains only to the small, non-representative subset of Eighth Circuit rulings SCOTUS chooses to review, so it says little about whether the Eighth Circuit itself will reverse the district court here. - [2026-01-30 to 2026-03-05] The district court case continued actively on discovery disputes and sanctions motions (unrelated to the merits of the preemption/ripeness issue) well after oral argument, indicating the underlying litigation remains active and contentious, but this does not by itself speak to the Eighth Circuit's forthcoming ruling. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69372761/jones-eagle-llc-v-ward/ NOT FOUND: No Eighth Circuit-specific historical reversal/vacatur rate specifically for preliminary-injunction appeals (as opposed to all appeals) was located; no explicit forecasting/odds source (legal commentary predicting outcome, polling, or other prediction market) beyond the Kalshi contract itself was found; no indication that the Eighth Circuit panel has issued its opinion as of the most recent sources reviewed (through mid-2026). BOTTOM LINE: The reference class most comparable (Eighth Circuit review of district-court merits rulings) has historically affirmed far more often than it reverses (circuit-wide reversal rate near only ~5%, albeit computed across all appeal types including many summarily resolved), suggesting a base-rate lean toward the injunction being left intact (a "No" outcome) absent case-specific reasons to think otherwise; however, the panel's heavy focus on ripeness/standing at the January 2026 oral argument (an explicit qualifying ground in this contract) somewhat elevates the chance of a partial vacatur beyond the generic base rate, and typical Eighth Circuit post-argument decision timing (often a few months, sometimes longer for complex constitutional cases) makes a ruling before the Feb 1, 2027 deadline reasonably likely to occur at all.

YES means: the Eighth Circuit panel (Shepherd, Kelly, Stras) issues a written opinion/order before Feb 1, 2027 in No. 25-1047 that vacates or reverses, in whole or in part and on any ground (including ripeness), Chief Judge Baker's Dec. 9, 2024 preliminary injunction against Act 174 enforcement. - [2026-01-14] At oral argument, judges quickly pivoted to ripeness, questioning whether Jones Eagle's claims were ready for federal review given an ongoing state subpoena, with Arkansas's counsel suggesting abstention might apply given a pending state enforcement proceeding — showing the panel itself raised, unprompted, the exact qualifying ground ("ripeness") named in the resolution criteria, rather than the parties' briefed merits issues alone. - [2026-01-14] Arkansas's own counsel argued the preemption theory was wrong and contended the laws do not conflict with federal statutes such as the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act and should be presumed valid under principles limiting federal preemption of state law , giving the panel an independent merits path to reversal beyond ripeness alone. - [2026, undated opinion] In a closely analogous Arkansas appeal (the LEARNS Act/CRT case, 8th Cir. No. 24-1990), the same circuit's recent practice was to vacate the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings after finding the district court's PI analysis flawed — demonstrating this panel's broader 2026 docket includes multiple instances of vacating Arkansas district-court injunctions on appeal. - [2026-dated opinion] Similarly, in the Arkansas hemp-industry case (Bio Gen), the Eighth Circuit concluded Act 629 is not unconstitutionally vague and the district court abused its discretion when it issued a preliminary injunction , and ultimately vacated the preliminary injunction, reversed the order denying the motion to dismiss, and remanded — a second recent precedent of this circuit overturning Arkansas PIs on review, reinforcing that vacatur of state-law injunctions is a live, recurring pattern for this court in 2026. - [2026-04-10] The same Eighth Circuit is simultaneously hearing Arkansas's parallel request to lift an injunction on the state's social-media algorithm law, showing the state of Arkansas has asked the Eighth Circuit to undo an injunction blocking a law banning social media platforms from implementing algorithms — indicating the state is aggressively and systematically pressing appellate reversal of PIs across multiple statutes, consistent with an institutional push that could extend to Jones Eagle. - [2026-06-09] A legal tracker's last confirmed status shows as of June 9, 2026, the statute remains codified, but enforcement of Act 174 and the related Oil and Gas Commission Rule K has been preliminarily enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas pending further court action — meaning the injunction was still intact nearly five months post-argument, but importantly nothing forecloses a ruling in the roughly eight months remaining before the Feb. 1, 2027 deadline. - [2026-10-06] As of the most recent entries in Justia's 2026 Eighth Circuit opinion index (opinions through Oct. 6, 2026), no Jones Eagle v. Ward decision appears among the circuit's published opinions, confirming the case remains undecided but also that the circuit is actively issuing dozens of opinions monthly, leaving ample institutional capacity to resolve this appeal before the deadline. - [2025-01-13 onward] The appeal has now been pending roughly 21 months since Arkansas's notice of appeal, well beyond the circuit's own aspirational norms, which statistically increases the near-term likelihood of an opinion issuing within the remaining window before Feb. 1, 2027, simply from docket-aging pressure. BOTTOM LINE: The strongest Yes case rests on the panel's own explicit ripeness/abstention questioning at argument (a qualifying ground under the contract) combined with this circuit's demonstrated 2026 pattern of vacating other Arkansas preliminary injunctions on appeal (LEARNS Act, Bio Gen hemp case), suggesting a real, non-trivial path to at least partial vacatur if the court rules before the deadline — though no ruling has issued through Oct. 9, 2026, so YES still requires both a vacatur/reversal and its timely issuance within the remaining roughly four-month window. NOT FOUND: Any Eighth Circuit opinion, order, or docket entry disposing of No. 25-1047 through Oct. 9, 2026; any public estimate of an expected decision date; any direct statement from the panel members about timing.

YES means: the Eighth Circuit issues a written opinion/order in Jones Eagle LLC v. Ward (No. 25-1047) before Feb 1, 2027 that vacates or reverses the district court's preliminary injunction against Act 174's foreign-ownership restrictions, in whole or in part, on any ground (including ripeness). - [2026-01-14] The docketed oral argument file confirms the case was argued for only 40 minutes and that the panel's questioning on appeal centered heavily on threshold ripeness/abstention concerns rather than the preemption merits, which cuts toward a narrower, more cautious disposition (e.g., remand to develop the ripeness record) rather than an immediate vacatur/reversal that would resolve this contract Yes outright — a remand-for-further-proceedings on an undecided ripeness question would not necessarily "vacate or reverse" the injunction itself. (https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/102148/jones-eagle-llc-v-wes-ward/) - [Pre-2026, cited in district court order] The district court itself already squarely addressed and rejected the state's ripeness and abstention arguments, finding Defendants assert that dismissal is warranted because the case is unripe for judicial review, and alternatively seek dismissal on Younger abstention grounds , and the Court finds ripeness for the reasons explained in the Court's standing analysis — meaning the Eighth Circuit panel would have to affirmatively overturn a reasoned, already-litigated ripeness ruling, not merely flag a new issue, raising the bar for a ripeness-based vacatur. (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/67679616818b345f27ef3c1b) - [2026-01-30 through 2026-03-05+] Docket activity shows the underlying district-court merits case has continued on an active, independent track — including a bench trial scheduled for the week of 5/11/2026 and ongoing discovery/sanctions disputes — indicating the district court is proceeding as if the injunction will likely remain in place, consistent with status-quo inertia while the appeal sits undecided. (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69372761/jones-eagle-llc-v-ward/) - [2026-06-09] A legal tracker's "last verified" snapshot confirms that roughly five months after argument, "enforcement of Act 174 and Rule K remains preliminarily enjoined… pending further court action," with no sign the Eighth Circuit had acted — demonstrating the panel has already blown past the circuit's own 90-day aspirational opinion target without ruling, which is some evidence of a complex, slow-moving disposition. (https://cryptoslate.com/crypto-laws/arkansas-digital-asset-mining-ownership-restrictions/) - [2026-07-30] In a separate but factually parallel Eighth Circuit case, Arkansas Act 372, a panel took from the case's original December 2024 injunction order until July 30, 2026 — well over 18 months — before a judge issued a 24-page decision overturning the lower court's injunction, illustrating that complex Arkansas constitutional-preemption appeals before this circuit can take well over a year post-injunction to resolve, and that even when reversal does occur it is not a quick turnaround. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Act_372) - [2025-03-10 docket, last public update] The only full Eighth Circuit docket snapshot publicly available (Justia) is frozen at March 2025 briefing-stage entries, with Justia itself noting the listing may be stale and directing users to PACER for current status — underscoring that no public, verifiable record shows any disposition, and the silence itself is consistent with continued pendency rather than a ruling having quietly issued. (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca8/25-1047) - [Mechanism] Because the panel pressed hard on ripeness/abstention — issues the state only raised as alternative, non-merits grounds and which the district court already rejected on a developed record — a plausible outcome is an affirmance on the merits-adjacent ripeness question (i.e., agreeing the case is ripe) paired with a merits affirmance, or a limited remand instructing further ripeness fact-finding without vacating anything yet; either outcome would not satisfy the "vacates or reverses" trigger and would resolve No. - [Deadline arithmetic] With oral argument on 2026-01-14 and no opinion through at least 2026-06-09 (nearly 5 months post-argument, double the circuit's internal norm), and no evidence found of any opinion through 2026-10-09 (nearly 9 months post-argument), the window remaining to the 2027-02-01 close is under 4 months; if the panel is already an outlier in taking this long, continued delay through the deadline — or an eventual affirmance rather than reversal — are the status-quo-consistent outcomes that resolve No. BOTTOM LINE: No public record shows any Eighth Circuit disposition as of October 2026, nearly nine months after argument; the district court's reasoned rejection of ripeness/abstention, the case's continued active life at the trial level (including a May 2026 bench trial), and a comparable Arkansas appeal (Act 372) that took over 18 months to yield even a reversal all support a strong case that no qualifying vacatur/reversal occurs before February 1, 2027. NOT FOUND: Any Eighth Circuit opinion, order, or docket entry disposing of No. 25-1047 after the January 2026 argument; any current (post-June 2026) PACER/CourtListener docket snapshot; any media or legal-tracker report of a decision date or expected release window.