Massachusetts got what it wanted from oral argument. The Supreme Judicial Court asked hard questions, Kalshi's lawyers gave imperfect answers, and the resulting coverage made it sound like the state had the upper hand. That may be true in that courtroom. It is not necessarily true in the law. The state's argument comes down to this: Kalshi's sports contracts look enough like sports bets that they should require a Massachusetts gambling license. It is a clean argument, and Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell has pushed it effectively. What the coverage tends to skip is that Kalshi operates as a federally designated contract market under CFTC oversight, a regulatory structure created after the 2008 financial crisis to establish uniform national standards for derivatives. Massachusetts is arguing that any state can reach into that framework and override it whenever the underlying event happens to involve a final score.…