Resolution Criteria

This market resolves YES if a court with appropriate jurisdiction rules that President Trump's "reciprocal tariffs" announced in early April 2025 are unlawful, AND enforcement of these tariffs subsequently ceases as a direct result of this ruling. The market resolves NO if no such court ruling occurs, or if a ruling occurs but enforcement continues despite it.

This contract will resolve positively if and only if April 2025 reciprocal tariffs

(a) on at least 50% of trading partners are found unlawful and reduced or eliminated, OR

(b) on at least 50% of trading partners by import volumes are found unlawful or reduced or eliminate (i.e., weighting in favor of large trading partners)

...are ceased by EOY 2025.

Background

On April 2, 2025, President Trump announced a universal 10% tariff on all imports starting April 5, followed by higher "reciprocal tariffs" on products from various countries beginning April 9. These measures were implemented as part of Trump's strategy to address trade deficits and what he characterized as non-reciprocal trade practices by other countries.

Considerations

Court challenges to presidential tariff actions can take various forms, including challenges based on constitutional authority, compliance with international trade agreements, or adherence to domestic trade laws. The timeline for such legal challenges can vary significantly, potentially extending beyond the term of this prediction market.

@RichardHanania recently detailed one such challenge:

https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1908858817515045342

I think there's a decent chance courts might save us from Trump's tariffs. The president's power to do what he has done rests on shaky legal grounds. This can be seen in the complaint of a Florida stationary company suing to stop Trump's tariffs with the support of a conservative legal organization.

You might ask what gives the president the power to wreck the global economy on his own? The plaintiffs argue no such power exists:

> President Trump is attempting to bypass these constraints by invoking the [International Emergency Economic Powers Act]. But in the IEEPA’s almost 50-year history, no previous president has used it to impose tariffs. Which is not surprising, since the statute does not even mention tariffs, nor does it say anything else suggesting it authorizes presidents to tax American citizens.

The IEEPA mentions things like embargoes and sanctions, and has been traditionally used against hostile powers like Russia and North Korea.

The complaint goes on:

> Even if the IEEPA did permit tariffs in some cases—which it does not— it still would not permit them here. The IEEPA limits presidents to actions that are “necessary” to address the specific emergency at hand. Here, President Trump declared an emergency relating to China because of illegal opioids entering the United States. But his China Executive Orders show no connection between the opioid problem and the tariff he ordered—much less that the tariff is “necessary” to resolve that problem. The means of an across-the-board tariff does not fit the end of stopping an influx of opioids, and is in no sense “necessary” to that stated purpose.

Obviously, the IEEPA allows certain actions for certain purposes. It doesn't allow the president to just shut off all foreign trade because he thinks trade is bad.

The complaint goes on to argue that even if the IEEPA is to be read in this way, it would violate the non-delegation doctrine of the Constitution. Congress can't simply abdicate its constitutional role in setting tariff policy to the president without placing any limits on his power.

This is what courts exist to do, to stop lawlessness that has the potential to wreck the country. Let’s hope the judicial branch does its job.