Resolves YES if a judge halts it from going into effect (i.e. preliminary injunction)
Resolves NO if the ban goes into effect first OR if Bytedance divests its stake to comply with the law (Including an IPO which satisfies the divestiture requirements)
Resolves N/A if the ban does not become a law.
From the bill:
"SEC. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Right Of Action.—A petition for review challenging this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
(b) Exclusive Jurisdiction.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act.
(c) Statute Of Limitations.—A challenge may only be brought—
(1) in the case of a challenge to this Act, not later than 165 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) in the case of a challenge to any action, finding, or determination under this Act, not later than 90 days after the date of such action, finding, or determination."
@PaulHabermas Can you clarify what "resolves ambiguously" means? I think I've heard that term used on Metaculus before, on Manifold I believe that means it would resolve N/A and all mana would be returned to traders. Is that what you meant?