Context: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/this-is-no-way-to-run-a-trade-war-trump-tariffs-china-mexico-canada-2d66c764
Resolves according to the final decision, at the end of the appeals process.
Update 2025-04-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Unconstitutional Counts as Unlawful:
A ruling that the tariffs are unconstitutional will be interpreted as the tariffs being ruled unlawful.
Update 2025-04-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Resolution Update:
Partial Strike Down: If the court strikes down any of Trump’s tariffs, the market will resolve as Yes.
Interpretation: A ruling that deems even one tariff unconstitutional (or otherwise unlawful) meets the resolution criteria.
Update 2025-04-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Important Resolution Clarification:
Before the First Judgment: If the tariffs are mooted before the first judgment, the market resolves as NO.
After a Lower Court Judgment: If a lower court judgment occurs and the tariffs are later mooted before the appeal, the lower court judgment stands and is used for resolution.
1,000People are also trading
@MartinRandall If it's mooted before the first judgment then it resolves NO. If there's some sort of lower court judgment and then it gets mooted before the appeal, the lower court judgment stands.
@MartinRandall resolves yes if the court strikes down any of trump's tariffs
The original justification for IEEPA was for putting sanctions on quickly in some sort of geopolitical emergency like an invasion. Trump and previous presidents used IEEPA for real emergencies like that ("the motte") Trump is the first to use IEEPA as a fig leaf to exercise absolute dictatorial control over non-emergency trade policy ("the bailey"). I wouldn't be surprised if the court comes up with some way to keep the motte without allowing the bailey.