Which of the above cases will have their holdings overruled by the Supreme Court before Donald Trump's term in office as president is scheduled to end?
Overruling the holding of that case will be considered as the resolution criteria, even if that case is not overruled in full. Upon request, and also if it is deemed necessary due to an upcoming Supreme Court case or petition, I will state the holding of the case so that it can be accurately traded on.
A case will count as overruled if a majority opinion of the court states that it is overruled even if the circumstances confronted in the case or not substantially similar or the same as the case being overruled. See Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 710 (2018). Additionally, a case will be counted as overruled if the court decides a case, presenting similar facts in a different manner than a prior case regardless of whether the Supreme Court states that the case has been overruled. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. 83, 101-105 (2020), Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023). However, a case will not be considered overruled, even if the factual, legal, or doctrinal basis for the decision in that case has been significantly eroded as long as the court doesn't go as far as to overrule the case. See e.g. Hernandez v. Mesa, 589 U. S. 93 (2020), Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. 120 (2017), Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004), Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).
Please note: that given the somewhat ambiguous nature of the Supreme Court's decisions, I will not trade on this market.
On Adding Answers:
I reserve the right to N/A any answer that is not in keeping with the spirit of this market
All answers must be real Supreme Court cases that have yet to be overruled
A case must have a clear holding
If an answer is added after that answer has already satisfied the criteria to resolve "Yes" or "No" that answer will resolve N/A
1,000People are also trading
Administration has announced its intention not to defend Humphrey's Executor (on constitutionality of independent agencies) https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/movawxboava/2025.02.12-OUT-Durbin-530D.pdf -- not all that surprising for them to be taking this position, but interesting to read bc it outlines their arguments.
@AaronSimansky Holding: A publicly funded scholarship program which excluded students pursuing a "degree in theology" does not violate the constitution.
@AaronSimansky Consider adding Humphrey's Executor v. United States , 295 US 602, on the constitutionality of independent agencies, which will likely be challenged by the administration asserting a "unitary executive" theory in litigation arising from the recent firing of NRLB and EEOC members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey's_Executor_v._United_States
@AaronSimansky Holding: Denial of public education to students not legally admitted into the country violates the Equal Protection Clause.
@AaronSimansky Holding: Full constitutional protection of rights does not automatically extend to all places under American control. This means that inhabitants of unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico—"even if they are U.S. citizens"—may lack some constitutional rights.
@AaronSimansky Holding: When a statement concerns a public figure it is not enough to show that it is false for the press to be liable for libel. Instead, the target of the statement must show that it was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity.
@AaronSimansky The fact that the defendant/petitioner happened to be a newspaper was actually not relevant to the holding. The same actual malice standard would apply to a random individual yelling defamatory things about a public official from the steps of the courthouse.
Also worth noting that "actual malice" here is a technical legal term, it does not have its ordinary English meaning. It means that the defendant either knew the defamatory statement to be false when they made it, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
@AaronSimansky Holding: Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from people within 100 feet of a health care facility's entrance before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets to such people does not violate the First Amendment rights of the speaker.
@AaronSimansky Holding: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause
@AaronSimansky Holding: State senate districts must have roughly equal populations based on the principle of "one person, one vote".
@AaronSimansky Holding: Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege.
@AaronSimansky Holding: The Recess Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess—intra-session or inter-session—of sufficient length (presumptively a minimum of 10 days). The Senate is in session when it says that it is.
@AaronSimansky Holding: The Independent Counsel Act's restriction on the power of the Attorney General to remove an inferior officer only for good cause does not violate the Appointments Clause. The means of selecting the independent counsel (wherein the Chief Justice of the United States appoints a panel of three judges who choose the special prosecutor) did not violate the Appointments Clause.
@AaronSimansky Holding: Congress has the power to pass an act directing the seizure and disposition, within the control of the Executive Branch, of the papers and tapes of a former president.
@AaronSimansky Holding: Neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
@AaronSimansky Holding: Any statute that criminalizes the desecration of the American flag is unconstitutional.
@AaronSimansky Holding: A lawsuit seeking an injunction against a state official did not violate the sovereign immunityof the state, because the state official was not acting on behalf of the state when he sought to enforce an unconstitutional law.
@AaronSimansky Holding: An Arizona law providing authority for local law enforcement to enforce immigration law violated the enumerated powers of Congress and is preempted by federal statute. Arizona law enforcement may inquire about a resident's legal status during lawful encounters, but may not implement its own immigration rules.
@AaronSimansky In my understanding the holding is: "An action in federal court to enjoin a state official from violating the federal constitution or federal law is not prohibited by 11th amendment sovereign immunity." In my opinion, this 1908 case is very unlikely to be overturned or even seriously challenged in the next four years. It's one of the main mechanisms used to challenge unconstitutional state laws, and as such is often relied on by conservatives as well as liberals.
@jb456 yeah I’d say it’s one of the more unlikely ones, but there have been signs that the court has started to chip away its foundation
@AaronSimansky Holding: The Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of their rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney, at no charge if need be.