This question resolves positively if the Supreme Court decides a case that could directly affect who becomes the U.S. president as a result of the 2024 election. The Supreme Court must hear oral arguments in the case and issue a decision; a decision denying certiorari or similarly dismissing a case would not count.
In order to count, the case must have a chance of directly affecting the ultimate result of the election (i.e. the person who is ultimately elected). For example, the Supreme Court decides which group of electors from a given state are legitimate (such that the decision could affect who becomes president), decides whether a recount will occur in states that could affect the final result, or decides on whether certain ballots should be counted in a way that could affect the final result. Cases about gerrymandering or voting procedures that occur fully before the election or for which no party is asking for relief that would change the election outcome won't count toward positive resolution. Also, the decision in the case doesn't have to change the result, as long as it's recognized by credible media reports that the court could have changed the result by ruling differently.
An example of a past case that would count is Bush v. Gore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Texas v. Pennsylvania would have counted had the Supreme Court eventually heard oral arguments in the case and issued a decision. Since the case was rejected by the court, it would not count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Pennsylvania
I will not trade in this market.
Related questions
Would a case about ballot eligibility before the election count? For example:
@EvanDaniel No, unless it involved throwing out general election votes. Such a case would affect who people vote for before the election, which I would count as indirectly, not directly, affecting the election. I'm interested in cases that could change the result of the election after it happened.
@NathanpmYoung By "chance of affecting", I mean that the result of election could be different if the Supreme Court rules one way versus another.
I'd expect the result of the market to be obvious, but here's how I'd make a decision if it wasn't. First, I'd consider the all the most extreme remedies requested by either side of a court case that the Supreme Court hears. Then I would resolve positively if:
1. The amount of electoral votes implicated by the most extreme remedies was enough to sway the elections, potential dependent of the results of lower court cases.
2. There's a non-negligible change that granting the most extreme remedies could lead to different election result.
Credible media sources (even if biased) saying that the Supreme Court ruling could "change the result of the election" or one side of the lawsuit saying their goal is to, for example, prove that X won the election instead of Y, would each be sufficient to prove these two points.
For example, on election day, Republicans win the election by 5 EC votes, including Wisconsin. Democrats sue to to initiate a recount, count extra ballots, etc. in Wisconsin. The case is heard by the Supreme Court. I would resolve positively, regardless of the result of the case or a potential recount.
I would be open to suggestions on how to better formalize this.