Kalshi faces growing risk that access to U.S. prediction markets will vary by state and federal circuit as 38 active cases span 21 states and enforcement actions affect at least 10 jurisdictions. The 10th Circuit denied Kalshi’s emergency injunction request in Utah, allowing the state to pursue civil or criminal action under its anti-gambling laws while the appeal proceeds. In August, U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby rejected Kalshi’s request to block enforcement, finding that federal law did not prevent Utah from applying its gambling restrictions to the platform’s sports contracts. State regulators argue the contracts are sports bets subject to licensing, age limits and consumer-protection rules, while Kalshi says they are federally regulated swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act. New York City, Connecticut and Baltimore have also challenged the company over sports contracts. The Third Circuit previously favored Kalshi at the preliminary-injunction stage in New Jersey, while the Ninth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Nevada. New Jersey has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the jurisdictional conflict. Legal analyst Daniel Wallach said states have won 12 consecutive federal rulings since the Minnesota decision and prevailed in 35 of 41 rulings involving preliminary injunctions, temporary restraining orders, stays or injunctions pending appeal. Polymarket traders assigned a 34% probability to the Supreme Court accepting a sports-event-contract case by year-end. Existing market data has not shown persistent price fragmentation between Kalshi and Polymarket, although state orders have produced different access rules and may pressure platforms to geofence products, remove markets or seek licensing.