🏅 Top traders

@Stralor it also doesn’t meet the no criteria so then shouldn’t it resolve N/A?

@MichaelLipman It meets point 4 of NO:

4. Case Ends Without Relief – The matter is settled, declared moot, or otherwise terminated without a qualifying injunction.

Regardless, "not reaching threshold for YES" is sufficient grounds for NO, not an N/A cop out.

@MichaelLipman For the record I think this whole situation is stupid and no one should be happy.

It seems to me that the matter was accepted by the SC and has been resolved, and they didn't issue an injunction even though it seems to have had a similar net result.

I have been pushing really hard lately to improve or do away with the AI criteria nonsense because they are often very confusing and weird.

@Eliza agreed. in any competently written market this could have resolved differently, but the AI description threw a hand grenade in

Sorry for the brief YES resolution, I misread the evidence. It's current mod policy to enforce arcane and stupid AI criteria when creators can't be bothered to write their own. Normally we prefer "spirit of the market" but there's no spirit in slop so rules lawyering it is. This market didn't meet its own thresholds for YES, as laid out in the comments, and I've revised the resolution to NO.

Another case of "beware AI market descriptions."

@Stralor In future markets, can I rely on AI Resolution Criteria > Spirit of the Market for all cases, or only in cases where the creator is inactive? IE, if the creator is active and resolves against an AI Resolution Criteria in a way that is geared towards the intended Spirit of the Market instead, would that ever be overruled because of the AI Resolution Criteria?

@Dssc Mildly yes, we are starting to enforce it. Our stance is creators lose their right to resolve as they please when they don't put in the effort to write their own criteria and then don't even bother to sanity check the AI output.

Of course, creators can fix the description ahead of time if they wish to realign it to the spirit, but showing up at resolution time to rug pull is no longer acceptable.

(I say "mildly" because we'll still handle it case-by-case and weigh the messy reality. We're not advocating for mass rules lawyering around the site as that's just annoying, but it's worth recognizing that in these kinds of markets there's no human "creator" in the important sense.)

@EvanDaniel plz

Whaddya think, do we need to fight it out or do you want me to just unilaterally decide?

@Eliza This feels like one where @EvanDaniel and I should both agree on it before clicking the button.

@Eliza

1. Grant cert?

Yes

2. It was for VOS Selections?

They were consolidated but Yes.

3. Injunction, stay, or judgement?

This probably counts as the SC giving the "merit judgement" here, since the injunction came from a lower court from my understanding. The rules already account for this with: A Supreme Court order that merely affirms a lower-court injunction counts only if the Court has granted cert and its mandate leaves the nationwide injunction fully in force by the deadline.

4. Scope

Nationwide, Yes

5. Timing

Before December 2026, Yes.

---

Seems like an obvious Yes to me.

Okay, I had a deeper look:

Supreme Court says:

Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The judgment in No. 24–1287 is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the judgment in No. 25–250 is affirmed.

(25-250 is V.O.S. Selections)

The V.O.S. Selections plaintiffs—five small businesses and 12 States—sued in the CIT. That court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. And the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed in relevant part, concluding that IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate . . . importation” did not authorize the challenged tariffs, which “are unbounded in scope, amount, and duration.” 149 F. 4th 1312, 1338. The Government filed a petition for certiorari in V.O.S. Selections, and the Learning Resources plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari before judgment. The Court granted the petitions and consolidated the cases.

---

From the Federal Circuit judgement:

We affirm the CIT’s holding that the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA’s text. We also affirm the CIT’s grant of declaratory relief that the orders are “invalid as contrary to law.” V.O.S. Selections, 772 F. Supp. 3d at 1383–84.

We vacate the CIT’s grant of a permanent injunction universally enjoining the enforcement of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs and remand for the CIT to reevaluate the propriety of granting injunctive relief and the proper scope of such relief, after considering all four eBay factors and the Supreme Court’s holding in CASA.

---

From the CIT judgement:

CONCLUSION

The court holds for the foregoing reasons that IEEPA does not authorize any of the Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders. This conclusion entitles Plaintiffs to judgment as a matter of law; as the court further finds no genuine dispute as to any material fact, summary judgment will enter against the United States. See USCIT R. 56. The challenged Tariff Orders will be vacated and their operation permanently enjoined. There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all. “[A]ll Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, and “[t]he tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.”

Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment are granted, and their Motions for Preliminary Injunction are denied as moot. Judgment will enter accordingly

@Eliza So let's review the ground rules:

0. It looks like any spot people are arguing about is related to point #3 about form of relief.

1. Since the case has been finished at the Supreme Court level, this has to resolve either Yes or No now, it doesn't stay open indefinitely, I closed trading.

2. The CIT did indeed say the tariffs are permanently enjoined.

3. The argument of @JonathanMannhart that the Federal Circuit vacated that injunction seems to be correct.

4. The Supreme Court affirmed what the Federal Circuit said.

---

A.) Did this meet ALL of the Yes criteria?

• I think 4 of the 5 are obviously Yes

• Form of relief is questionable.

B.) Did this meet ANY of the No criteria?

• 1/2/5 clearly did not happen.

• For 3, there is nowhere in the SC ruling that \*explicitly\* denies an injunction and they also did not themselves vacate or overturn a previous injunction since the Federal Circuit had already done that.

• For 4, this is the default if we don't decide that the form of relief matched the pattern required by the description

@Eliza I think your final bullet point makes the whole discussion clear:

The number 4 criteria for No is “Case ends without relief”. If that doesn’t apply then No doesn’t apply. While there is some debate about if the merits judgement is better described as a declaratory judgement vs an enjoinment, there is no debate that the plaintiffs got their relief due to the supreme court’s ruling. That is why I feel Yes is still the right resolution.

@mods the creator of this market is now a deleted account. the tariffs were halted due to a supreme court injunction. can we resolve this market?

@MichaelLipman yes, makes sense to me.

@MichaelLipman actually per the description, maybe not. The Supreme court issued declaratory relief, not injunctive relief

"A Supreme Court order that merely affirms a lower-court injunction counts only if the Court has granted cert and its mandate leaves the nationwide injunction fully in force..."

Because the Federal Circuit had already vacated the nationwide injunction back in August, there was no nationwide injunction left in force for the Supreme Court to affirm.

I don’t think this should necessarily resolve YES

@Gen

As you say there was no nationwide injunction so that clarification does not apply the the scenario we’re in.

Before the Supreme Court ruled there was no live injunction, IEEPA tariffs were being collected. After they ruled CBP had to stop collecting which they did.

If you look at the No criteria it’s very clear they do not apply. The closest is “Tariffs Rescinded – The Liberation Day tariffs are fully rescinded or nullified by executive or legislative action before the Court grants an injunction.” But that didn’t happen, the Supreme Court forced the tariffs to stop, they were not preemptively rescinded or nullified by executive or legislative action.

Whereas the Yes criteria include “a merits judgment that expressly enjoins the tariffs (a permanent injunction).” I will grant that the merits judgement that the Supreme Court ordered was a declaratory judgement, however it was still a merits judgement that provided relief (the tariffs were stopped nation wide because of the judgement) and thus it was a merits judgement that permanently enjoined the tariffs.

If the Yes and No criteria made a distinction about declaratory judgements I’d be receptive to the argument, but all of the No criteria are about cases where the Supreme Court avoids halting the tariffs which is plainly not what happened. They halted the tariffs. They provided relief. They enjoined the actions of the executive branch.

@MichaelLipman I left it in the mod queue asking for a second opinion, I think you’re probably right - sold my position

@Gen thanks

@Gen is this still in the queue to be resolved? Any estimate for about how long that might take?

@MichaelLipman Yes, and no, unfortunately I don't have a good estimate. If the long report queue continues we could consider adding more mods / cycling out some of the existing ones. Probably not something we will rush to do though @shankypanky

in the meantime I myself will try to resolve more of the reports, but I won't be able to do this one

@Gen understood, thank you. I’ll check back in two weeks. My landlord said for now I can pay rent with an iou for mana, so no rush

@mods can we resolve this?