This event has ended. Showing historical data.
$720.75K
1
3
$720.75K
1
3
Trader mode: Actionable analysis for identifying opportunities and edge
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the United States Supreme Court issues an official ruling in the case Donald J. Trump, et al., v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. by the listed date, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”. An official ruling on the case is defined as any decision on the merits of the case issued by the Supreme Court, including but not limited to a written opinion, summary disposition, or per curiam opinion. If the case is dismissed as improvidently granted, dismi
AI-generated analysis based on market data. Not financial advice.
This prediction market concerns whether the United States Supreme Court will issue a formal ruling in the case Donald J. Trump, et al., v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. by a specified deadline. The case challenges the constitutionality of tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Specifically, the plaintiffs, a group of steel importers, argue that Congress unconstitutionally delegated its legislative power over tariffs to the President through this statute. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in June 2023, marking its first direct review of presidential tariff authority under Section 232 in decades. The outcome could redefine the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch on trade policy. Interest in the case is high among legal scholars, businesses affected by the tariffs, and political observers, as a ruling could set a precedent limiting or affirming expansive presidential trade powers. The market resolves based on whether any official decision on the merits, including a written opinion or summary disposition, is issued by the Court before the deadline.
The legal dispute originates from Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This law allows the President to adjust imports through tariffs or quotas if the Secretary of Commerce finds they threaten to impair national security. Congress passed this during the Cold War, granting the executive branch broad authority. The Supreme Court last addressed the constitutionality of Section 232 in 1976 in Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc. In that case, the Court upheld the law against a nondelegation challenge, finding Congress had provided sufficient guidance. For decades, this precedent allowed presidents to use Section 232 sparingly, primarily for oil imports. This changed dramatically in 2018 when President Trump applied Section 232 tariffs broadly to steel and aluminum from allies like Canada and the European Union, arguing global overcapacity threatened U.S. industrial base security. This aggressive use triggered immediate legal challenges, with importers filing suits in the Court of International Trade arguing the 1976 precedent was wrong and that Section 232 represents an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The lower courts, bound by the 1976 Supreme Court ruling, rejected these arguments, leading petitioners to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its own precedent.
A Supreme Court ruling could fundamentally alter the separation of powers in trade policy. If the Court strikes down Section 232, it would require Congress to pass specific legislation for future tariffs based on national security, potentially making such trade actions harder to implement. This would represent a major shift of power from the White House back to Capitol Hill. Economically, the decision affects thousands of businesses. The Trump-era tariffs impacted over $50 billion in annual steel and aluminum imports, raising costs for U.S. manufacturers in automotive, construction, and appliance industries. A ruling could also influence pending challenges to other tariffs and shape how future presidents use trade policy as an economic tool. Politically, the case tests the Court's willingness to revive the nondelegation doctrine, a legal principle favored by some conservative jurists to limit federal regulatory power. A decision against the tariffs could be seen as a rebuke of presidential authority, while an affirmation would solidify expansive executive power in trade matters for future administrations of either party.
The case, docketed as Donald J. Trump, et al., v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. (No. 23-1), is fully briefed before the Supreme Court. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled as of late 2024. The Biden administration, through Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, filed a brief in November 2023 urging the Court to uphold Section 232's constitutionality. The plaintiffs filed their reply brief in January 2024. The Court's decision to hear the case came after the plaintiffs appealed the Federal Circuit's August 2022 ruling. The timing of a ruling is uncertain, but the Court typically issues decisions in argued cases by the end of its term in late June or early July.
Section 232 is a U.S. trade law passed in 1962. It authorizes the President to adjust imports through tariffs or quotas if the Secretary of Commerce finds those imports threaten to impair national security. The law has been used for tariffs on items like oil, steel, and aluminum.
The nondelegation doctrine is a constitutional principle that Congress cannot transfer its legislative powers to another branch. The related major questions doctrine holds that Congress must speak clearly when authorizing executive agencies to decide issues of vast economic or political significance. Both doctrines are central to the plaintiffs' arguments against the tariffs.
A ruling striking down Section 232 would limit future presidents' ability to impose tariffs unilaterally for national security reasons, requiring congressional approval. A ruling upholding the law would preserve broad presidential trade authority, potentially allowing future administrations to impose similar tariffs on other sectors like semiconductors or critical minerals.
No, President Biden has largely kept the Section 232 tariffs in place. In 2022, his administration replaced the tariffs on EU steel and aluminum with a quota-based arrangement, but the fundamental tariff authority and rates for many other countries remain. His administration is defending the law's constitutionality before the Supreme Court.
If the Court dismisses the case as improvidently granted (DIG), it means the justices decide after granting review that the case should not have been accepted. The lower court ruling upholding the tariffs would stand, but no Supreme Court precedent would be set. The prediction market specifies that a DIG would resolve as 'No' for an official ruling on the merits.
Educational content is AI-generated and sourced from Wikipedia. It should not be considered financial advice.
3 markets tracked
No data available
| Market | Platform | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Poly | 68% |
| Poly | 31% |
| Poly | 16% |
No related news found
Add this market to your website
<iframe src="https://predictpedia.com/embed/vjnOQF" width="400" height="160" frameborder="0" style="border-radius: 8px; max-width: 100%;" title="Will the Supreme Court rule on Trump's tariffs by...?"></iframe>