I don't think there's any likelihood of that. Unlike economist wankers and clueless polits (read: Ron Paul), judges are concerned with the letter of the law; in that context, it's inconceivable Bitcoin would be anything but money.
I think BTC is actually a hybrid. It is certainly money for the purposes of prosecuting a Ponzi scheme where the "accounts" are denominated in BTC. It might not be for other purposes. For instance, some regulatory agencies that for whatever reason don't want to mess with it might decide it isn't "money" for the purposes of being within their jurisdiction.
While regulators often like to claim that their statutory authority entitles them to regulate everything under the sun, there are occasions when something is such a headache they'd just as soon ignore it. While two big states (New York and California) have already weighed in to some extent on BTC, it's entirely possible some smaller states with less BTC activity would rather not.
