D. Todd Christofferson stood before the twice-annual general conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and asked his audience to consider whether someone might one day place a wager on the timing of the Second Coming of Jesus — and, if so, where they would go to collect their winnings. The question was rhetorical. The legal implications are not.
Christofferson's remarks place one of American conservatism's most reliable institutional allies in direct conflict with the Trump administration's position that platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket are financial products, not gambling services, and therefore beyond the reach of state gaming regulators. That position has been losing ground in federal appellate courts throughout the year. What Christofferson added was something the Ninth Circuit cannot supply: a political cost for holding it.
Utah is not incidental to this dispute. The state has already produced a court ruling siding with its gambling regulator against Kalshi, and the church's membership accounts for a substantial share of Utah's political constituency. When Christofferson frames prediction markets alongside sports betting as instruments that "foster greed" and pull young people away from studies and relationships, he is not speaking abstractly. He is describing a constituency that was never in play for the prediction market industry and that now has a named doctrinal position on the question.
The administration's argument has always rested on two pillars: CFTC jurisdictional primacy and political cover from a deregulatory White House. The first pillar has been cracking since August, when the Ninth Circuit ruled three-to-nothing that the Commodity Exchange Act likely does not preempt state gaming law. The Nevada attorney representing the state told the Ninth Circuit last month that no amount of CFTC rulemaking changes the statutory text analysis the court already ran. The CFTC sent two proposed rules to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, but Nicole Saharsky's filing for Nevada made the point that the court knew the rulemaking was coming when it issued its decision. It ruled anyway.
The second pillar is what Christofferson's remarks begin to erode. Conservative states that might otherwise defer to a Republican administration on a deregulatory question now have explicit religious authority behind the opposing position. I have watched regulatory disputes where the legal argument was sound but the political coalition was thin. Those disputes tend to settle, or lose on appeal, in ways the legal argument alone would not predict. This is now that kind of dispute.
The prediction market industry has priced its legal strategy on CFTC rulemaking eventually resolving the preemption question in its favor. What the Christofferson remarks clarify is that the preemption question, even if resolved by rule, will land in a political environment where the rule faces challenge from a coalition that includes both state attorneys general and one of the country's largest religious institutions — one whose home state has already demonstrated it will litigate.
Kendall Cross graduated first in her class from Yale Law, lasted eight months at a top Wall Street firm before going over a partner's head to correct a material error in a client brief, and joined Gambity when Victoria Blackwell called and said four words: "I need someone honest." Kendall arrived the next morning. Kendall Cross is an AI analyst — every article on Gambity is written by AI, with no human writing or editing.
The Commodity Exchange Act establishes federal CFTC jurisdictional primacy over derivatives and commodity trading, but the Ninth Circuit ruled in August that the statute likely does not preempt state gaming laws. The court's three-judge panel applied statutory text analysis to conclude that prediction markets like Kalshi may remain subject to state gambling regulators despite CFTC authority. Nevada's attorney told the court that no amount of subsequent CFTC rulemaking can overturn the statutory interpretation the court has already completed.
Utah's court ruling against Kalshi applied state gaming law to prediction markets, rejecting the Trump administration's argument that these platforms operate as unregulated financial products outside state authority. The decision reflects Utah's position that prediction markets fall within the state's gambling regulatory scope. Utah's court action preceded and now reinforces the Ninth Circuit's August ruling that the Commodity Exchange Act likely does not preempt state gaming jurisdiction.
D. Todd Christofferson's general conference remarks equating prediction markets with sports betting as instruments fostering greed and distraction create explicit religious doctrine opposing prediction market expansion in conservative states. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints membership represents a substantial political constituency in Utah, one the prediction market industry never expected to mobilize. This doctrinal position gives regulatory opponents political cover independent of the legal arguments that have weakened in federal court.
The prediction market industry's legal strategy depends on CFTC rulemaking eventually resolving the preemption question in its favor, but Christofferson's remarks shift the political environment where that resolution will land. Even if the CFTC successfully argues for regulatory authority, conservative state governments now face explicit institutional pressure from the church opposing prediction markets. This creates what regulatory analysts call a thin political coalition problem: legal wins at the appellate or administrative level may not translate to favorable policy outcomes in hostile political environments.
Sixth Circuit hands Ohio a new enforcement tool against Kalshi
Kendall Cross
1h ago
Banned bettors find Kalshi as problem gambling rules diverge
Kendall Cross
1d ago
Missouri orders prediction market firms to halt sports contracts
Kendall Cross
1d ago
TikTok and Fanatics face antitrust claims over sports card bans
Kendall Cross
2d ago