Kalshi lost its request for an emergency injunction pending appeal in its legal fight with Utah, allowing the state to pursue civil or criminal action under its anti-gambling laws. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the motion after a federal judge ruled last month that Utah’s gambling laws apply to Kalshi’s sports betting contracts and upheld the state’s summary judgment. State regulators argue prediction markets are unlicensed sports betting platforms, while Kalshi and similar firms say the CFTC (U.S. derivatives regulator) has exclusive authority because the contracts qualify as swaps (derivative contracts). The dispute could reach the Supreme Court after New Jersey filed a certiorari petition (request for Supreme Court review) on state jurisdiction over sports prediction markets. Legal expert Daniel Wallach said states have won 12 consecutive federal court rulings since the Minnesota decision; overall, states prevailed in 35 of 41 rulings involving preliminary injunctions, temporary restraining orders or injunctions pending appeal, an 85% success rate. Polymarket data puts the chance of the Supreme Court accepting a sports event contract case by year-end at 31%.