$3.92K
1
10
$3.92K
1
10
Trader mode: Actionable analysis for identifying opportunities and edge
Before 2026 If exactly X justices vote in favor of the petitioner in Trump v. Slaughter, then the market resolves to Yes. X justice is counted as voting in favor of the petitioner only if, according to the Court's final action, that justice supported a judgment that grants some or all relief requested by the petitioner. The number of votes for the petitioner is the number of justices who concurred in a judgment of the Court in favor of the petitioner, or dissented from the judgment against the
Prediction markets currently assign a 73% probability that exactly six Supreme Court justices will vote in favor of former President Donald Trump in Trump v. Slaughter, the case concerning his removal from Colorado's ballot. This price, translating to a 73-cent cost for a "Yes" outcome on Kalshi, indicates the market views a 6-3 vote as the most likely single outcome. However, with only $4,000 in total volume across all vote-count markets, liquidity is thin, suggesting this consensus is not backed by heavy capital and remains sensitive to new information.
The pricing reflects a strategic reading of the Court's ideological composition and its recent hearing. The market is likely betting that the Court's conservative majority will rule for Trump, but that one or more conservative justices may seek a narrower, more unanimous or near-unanimous ruling to avoid the appearance of a purely partisan decision. The 6-3 spread specifically suggests the market expects the three liberal justices (Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson) to dissent, while the six conservative justices form the majority. This aligns with the skeptical questioning faced by the plaintiffs' attorneys during oral arguments, where even some liberal justices expressed concerns about the national implications of a single state's decision.
The primary catalyst will be the Court's final opinion and vote tally, expected by late June or early July 2024. A shift away from the 6-3 consensus could occur if a broader ruling, such as a 9-0 decision on procedural grounds, gains traction. Conversely, a narrower 5-4 ruling is possible if a conservative justice breaks ranks to uphold Colorado's authority under the 14th Amendment's Insurrection Clause. Any unexpected procedural developments or leaked drafts before the official release could cause immediate and volatile repricing in this low-liquidity market. The thin volume means even modest new bets can significantly move the current 73% probability.
AI-generated analysis based on market data. Not financial advice.
This prediction market topic concerns the Supreme Court case Trump v. Slaughter, which involves a challenge to the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) structure and authority. The specific question is how many of the nine Supreme Court justices will vote in favor of former President Donald Trump's position as the petitioner in the case before 2026. The case centers on whether the FTC's current structure, with commissioners who can only be removed for cause, violates the separation of powers by insulating the agency from presidential control. A vote 'for the petitioner' means a justice supports granting some or all of the relief Trump's legal team is seeking, which could include declaring the FTC's structure unconstitutional or limiting its enforcement powers. The case is being closely watched as a major test of the administrative state's independence and the scope of presidential power over federal agencies. Interest is high because the outcome could reshape regulatory enforcement across multiple industries and has become entangled in broader political debates about agency accountability.
The legal debate over removing heads of independent agencies traces back to the Supreme Court's 1935 decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. That ruling upheld Congress's power to create agencies like the FTC with commissioners removable only for cause, establishing a precedent that has protected agency independence for decades. The modern challenge began with the 2010 case Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, where the Court struck down a two-layer for-cause removal protection, signaling renewed judicial scrutiny. This scrutiny intensified in 2020 with Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where a 5-4 conservative majority held that the CFPB director's for-cause removal protection was unconstitutional because the agency exercised substantial executive power. The Court reasoned that such insulation violated the President's Article II executive authority. The FTC, established in 1914, has operated under a similar for-cause removal structure for its commissioners. Trump v. Slaughter represents the next logical test, applying the Seila Law precedent to a multi-member commission. The case follows a trend of the Roberts Court gradually dismantling protections for independent agencies, a project spanning over a decade.
The outcome of this case has profound implications for the entire regulatory landscape. A ruling in favor of the petitioner could destabilize dozens of independent agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and Federal Reserve, by calling their leadership structures into question. This would grant presidents significantly more power to immediately remove agency heads who pursue policies contrary to administration goals, potentially leading to rapid shifts in regulatory enforcement with each election. For businesses and the economy, such a ruling would create substantial uncertainty. Long-term regulatory strategies and compliance investments could be upended by swift leadership changes, affecting sectors from technology and telecommunications to finance and consumer protection. The case represents a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the presidency and the administrative state, with consequences for how federal law is implemented and enforced for generations.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Trump v. Slaughter in its 2024 term. Oral arguments are scheduled for late 2024, with a decision expected by June 2025. The case advanced to the Court after conflicting lower court rulings on the constitutionality of the FTC's structure. Legal briefs from both parties and numerous amicus curiae (friend of the court) filings from business groups, legal scholars, and former government officials have been submitted. The Justice Department is defending the FTC's current structure on behalf of the Biden administration.
The case challenges whether the structure of the Federal Trade Commission, whose commissioners can only be removed for cause, violates the Constitution's separation of powers by limiting the President's authority over executive branch agencies.
Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) found the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's single-director structure unconstitutional. Trump v. Slaughter tests whether that logic applies to multi-member commissions like the FTC, which have operated differently for over a century.
Based on their judicial records, Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have expressed skepticism of insulated agency power. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett are considered potential swing votes in this closely watched case.
A ruling against the FTC could mean presidents gain immediate removal power over FTC commissioners, potentially leading to rapid leadership changes that alter enforcement priorities. The decision might also invite challenges to other independent agencies.
The Court will hear arguments in the 2024 term and is expected to issue its decision by the end of June 2025, though rulings can sometimes come earlier or later depending on the Court's schedule.
Educational content is AI-generated and sourced from Wikipedia. It should not be considered financial advice.
Share your predictions and analysis with other traders. Coming soon!
10 markets tracked
No data available
| Market | Platform | Price |
|---|---|---|
Will exactly 6 justices vote for the petitioner in Trump v. Slaughter? | Kalshi | 73% |
Will exactly 5 justices vote for the petitioner in Trump v. Slaughter? | Kalshi | 21% |
Will exactly 4 justices vote for the petitioner in Trump v. Slaughter? | Kalshi | 3% |
Will exactly 0 justices vote for the petitioner in Trump v. Slaughter? | Kalshi | 2% |
Will exactly 9 justices vote for the petitioner in Trump v. Slaughter? | Kalshi | 2% |
Will exactly 8 justices vote for the petitioner in Trump v. Slaughter? | Kalshi | 2% |
Will exactly 7 justices vote for the petitioner in Trump v. Slaughter? | Kalshi | 2% |
Will exactly 3 justices vote for the petitioner in Trump v. Slaughter? | Kalshi | 2% |
Will exactly 2 justices vote for the petitioner in Trump v. Slaughter? | Kalshi | 2% |
Will exactly 1 justice vote for the petitioner in Trump v. Slaughter? | Kalshi | 2% |
No related news found
Add this market to your website
<iframe src="https://predictpedia.com/embed/Jg6kQs" width="400" height="160" frameborder="0" style="border-radius: 8px; max-width: 100%;" title="How many justices will vote for Trump in the FTC removal case?"></iframe>