This market will resolve to "Yes" if the Supreme Court of the United States issues a decision that reverses, vacates, or otherwise overturns the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s August 29, 2025 decision in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, in which the Federal Circuit held that the tariffs imposed by Executive Orders 14193, 14194, 14195, 14257, and 14266 exceeded the President’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by December 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise this market will resolve to "No."
If the Supreme Court dismisses the case as improvidently granted, denies certiorari, grants/vacates/remands without deciding the merits of IEEPA authorization, affirms by an equally divided Court, or vacates due to mootness, or if the parties settle the case this market will resolve to "No."
For purposes of this market, the government prevails if the Supreme Court rules on the merits that the tariffs are authorized under IEEPA, or otherwise reverses or vacates the Federal Circuit’s holding that they are unauthorized under IEEPA, regardless of whether the Court remands for further proceedings on issues such as remedy or scope of relief. The government does not prevail if the Supreme Court affirms the Federal Circuit’s decision that the tariffs are unauthorized by IEEPA, even if the Court modifies or vacates portions of the judgment relating only to remedy or injunctive relief.
The resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
Update 2026-01-02 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If SCOTUS creates a partial carveout for tariffs (e.g., authorizes some tariffs but not others under IEEPA), the market will resolve YES as long as the Court rules that any tariffs are authorized under IEEPA, even if other tariffs are found unauthorized. The key is whether SCOTUS reverses or vacates the Federal Circuit's holding that the tariffs are unauthorized under IEEPA - authorization of any scope under IEEPA counts as a government victory.
Update 2026-01-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If SCOTUS rules that IEEPA can only be used for emergencies but decides we aren't in an emergency (so Trump misused them), the market resolves NO.
If SCOTUS rules IEEPA can only be used in targeted cases but not for broad tariffs, the market resolves NO.
In cases with gray area, the creator will look to similar questions on sites like Polymarket and Kalshi for guidance.
1,000People are also trading
@HillaryClinton Sorry if this is clear to others from the description, but if SCOTUS creates a partial carveout for tariffs and "remands/vacates in part", how does this resolve?
For purposes of this market, the government prevails if the Supreme Court rules on the merits that the tariffs are authorized under IEEPA, or otherwise reverses or vacates the Federal Circuit’s holding that they are unauthorized under IEEPA
Should I interpret this to mean an authorization of any scope will resolve YES?
@Sketchy it's specifically about under IEEPA. It's very likely that they may say other tariffs are legitimate.
For example his national security tariffs on steel are different and probably legal.
@HillaryClinton Ok I'm admittedly still catching up on the nuances here. But SCOTUS could conceivably say many partial things on IEEPA, eg:
"IEEPA can be used for tariffs, but only for this definition of emergencies..."
... which all/some/none of Trump's tariffs fall under
"IEEPA can be used for tariffs, but only for some targeted cases"
... or many other limiting principles
There seems to be a spectrum of partial decisions that could range from "blocks all of Trump's tariffs in practice" to "allows all of Trump's tariffs in practice" to everything in between. This court has a little bit of a perceived impartiality fetish imo, so I think there's a decent change they try for something middle ground. There are a lot of different tariffs Trump has pushed under IEEPA - The "10% minimum reciprocal" stuff, China/Canada/Mexico "fentanyl" tariffs, Russian oil, probably others. So if only some survive, how does the market resolve?
@Sketchy If it's only for emergencies, but they decide we aren't in an emergency so he missused them, then this resolves No.
If they rule it can only be used in targeted cases but not for broad tariffs, it resolves No.
I do concede there is some gray area here. If there is gray area, I will look to sites like Polymarket and Kalshi which have similar questions.