This event has ended. Showing historical data.
$174.74K
1
10
$174.74K
1
10
Trader mode: Actionable analysis for identifying opportunities and edge
This market will resolve according to the number of Supreme Court Justices who voted in favor of the petitioner (Donald J. Trump) in the case Donald J. Trump, et al., v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. A justice will be considered to have voted in favor of the petitioner if, according to the official Supreme Court ruling, that justice concurred in a judgment that grants some or all relief requested by the petitioner or dissented from a judgment that grants none of th
AI-generated analysis based on market data. Not financial advice.
This prediction market concerns the Supreme Court case Donald J. Trump, et al., v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., which challenges the constitutionality of tariffs imposed during the Trump administration. The market will resolve based on how many Supreme Court justices vote in favor of the petitioner, Donald J. Trump, by December 31, 2026. A justice is counted as voting for Trump if they concur in a judgment granting him any relief or dissent from a judgment granting him none. The case tests the scope of presidential authority under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to adjust imports that threaten national security. The specific tariffs at issue were placed on steel and aluminum imports from numerous countries in 2018. The legal challenge argues these tariffs exceeded statutory authority and violated constitutional separation of powers. Interest in this market stems from its implications for executive power, international trade policy, and the Supreme Court's role in checking presidential actions on national security grounds. The outcome could affect billions of dollars in trade and set a precedent for future administrations.
The legal authority for the tariffs stems from Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to adjust imports if the Secretary of Commerce finds they threaten national security. This provision was used sparingly before the Trump administration, with only five investigations conducted between 1980 and 2016. The most notable previous use was in 1986, when President Reagan imposed voluntary restraints on machine tool imports. The constitutional question involves the nondelegation doctrine, which limits how much authority Congress can grant to the executive branch. The Supreme Court last struck down a law under this doctrine in 1935 with A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. For decades afterward, the Court upheld broad delegations. Recent years have seen renewed interest in the doctrine from conservative justices. In 2019, Justice Gorsuch wrote in Gundy v. United States that 'the Constitution does not permit the delegation of legislative power to the president without an 'intelligible principle' to guide his discretion.' The current case tests whether Section 232 provides such a principle.
The Supreme Court's decision will define the limits of presidential power over trade policy. A ruling favoring broad authority could enable future presidents to impose tariffs more freely by citing national security, potentially affecting prices for consumers and costs for manufacturers. A ruling limiting authority could constrain trade policy tools available to the executive branch, shifting more power to Congress. Economically, the outcome could impact global supply chains that rely on steel and aluminum. The U.S. imported $29 billion worth of steel in 2023, with tariffs affecting relationships with allies like Canada, the European Union, and Japan. Domestic steel producers and downstream manufacturers who use steel have competing interests in the tariff policy. The case also matters for constitutional law, as it could revive the nondelegation doctrine after nearly 90 years of dormancy. This would represent a significant shift in the balance of power between branches of government.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in its October 2024 term. Oral arguments are scheduled for early 2025. The Court consolidated multiple challenges to the tariffs, with Donald J. Trump, et al., v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. as the lead case. The Justice Department, representing the government, filed its brief defending the tariffs in November 2024. Numerous amicus briefs have been submitted by industry groups, constitutional law scholars, and foreign governments. The Court's decision is expected by June 2025, but the prediction market allows for resolution through December 2026 to account for any procedural delays or reconsiderations.
Section 232 tariffs are import restrictions imposed by the president under authority from Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The law allows tariffs when imports threaten to impair national security. The Trump administration used this authority to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum in 2018.
Trump needs at least five justices to vote in his favor to win the case. A 5-4 decision would grant him relief. The prediction market resolves based on the total number of justices voting for Trump, whether they form a majority or dissent.
The Court will hear arguments in early 2025 and likely issue a decision by June 2025. The prediction market resolution date of December 31, 2026, provides a conservative timeline that accounts for any unexpected delays or procedural matters.
If the Court rules against Trump, the tariffs could be invalidated, potentially requiring refunds of tariffs paid. The decision would limit future presidents' ability to use Section 232 authority without clearer congressional guidelines.
The U.S. Court of International Trade and various Circuit Courts of Appeals heard challenges. The Federal Circuit ruled against the tariffs in 2022, while the D.C. Circuit upheld them in 2019. This split in rulings contributed to the Supreme Court taking the case.
Most of the Section 232 tariffs remain in effect while litigation continues. The Biden administration has maintained many of them, though it reached agreements with the EU, Japan, and UK to replace tariffs with quota systems for certain products.
Educational content is AI-generated and sourced from Wikipedia. It should not be considered financial advice.
10 markets tracked
No data available
| Market | Platform | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Poly | 32% |
| Poly | 28% |
| Poly | 10% |
| Poly | 10% |
| Poly | 9% |
| Poly | 9% |
| Poly | 8% |
| Poly | 4% |
| Poly | 1% |
| Poly | 0% |
No related news found
Add this market to your website
<iframe src="https://predictpedia.com/embed/ZyqzSW" width="400" height="160" frameborder="0" style="border-radius: 8px; max-width: 100%;" title="How many SCOTUS justices rule in favor of Trump's tariffs?"></iframe>