A lucrative corner of the Trump family's business interests could soon land before the Supreme Court, in what would mark a major setback for one of its newer money-making operations.

A bipartisan coalition of attorneys general from 39 states and the District of Columbia is asking the justices to decide whether states may regulate the sports-related contracts offered by Kalshi, a prediction market platform with direct financial ties to Donald Trump Jr.

The president's eldest son holds an equity interest in Kalshi and is also connected to rival platform Polymarket through 1789 Capital, the investment firm in which he is a partner. That firm's investments in Polymarket have reportedly totaled hundreds of millions of dollars.

At the center of the dispute is the question of whether Kalshi's contracts should be treated as federally regulated financial products or as gambling subject to state laws. The Trump administration has backed federal oversight through the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an approach that could curtail individual states' ability to regulate the industry. State officials counter that their own rules protect consumers and preserve their regulatory authority. How that question is resolved would help determine whether sports-event trading operates nationwide under a single federal framework or a patchwork of state gambling regimes.

In a Friday opinion column in Mediaite, Ana Marie Cox argued that a Supreme Court ruling against Kalshi could deal a heavy blow to the controversial industry, which has benefited from the administration's posture. "A Supreme Court decision against Kalshi could pop the prediction market bubble," Cox wrote.

The legal fight began when New Jersey moved to apply its gambling laws to Kalshi. A federal appeals court sided with the company, but other appeals courts have taken differing positions on states' regulatory powers, setting the stage for a possible Supreme Court review. The attorneys general are seeking to bring the dispute before the justices. Divides like this one are among the strongest triggers for Supreme Court review, though the justices turn away the vast majority of the petitions they receive.

"They cannot strip the States of their core sovereign power through relabeling and window-dressing," the coalition wrote in its brief.

The National Football League, tribal governments and gambling industry groups have also joined the fight, arguing that the platforms should not operate beyond the state safeguards already put in place.

Prediction markets allow users to trade contracts tied to political appointments, elections and other real-world events. Critics point to instances in which people with apparent inside knowledge of White House decisions appeared to profit from the platforms.

Cox highlighted three suspiciously timed bets on the appointment of White House press secretary Katie Zacharia. The trades carried only a 1 percent probability for Zacharia and are being investigated by Kalshi. She also cited other reports of traders profiting from bets on Trump administration decisions in ways that resembled insider trading. One teleprompter minder made more than $100,000 by buying predictions on what Trump would say, and a report found that $2.4 million worth of trades were tied to specific events in Trump's Iran war.

Cox predicted that the conservative-majority Supreme Court might ultimately give the administration what it wants. Whether the justices would even be willing to hear the case remains to be seen. A decision to take it up would settle the regulatory question nationwide, while a denial would leave the conflicting appeals court rulings in place and the state-by-state dispute unresolved. With concerns over prediction markets mounting, a major blow to the Trump family's latest money-making scheme could be coming.