Resolution criteria
This market resolves to YES if the "Stop Climate Shakedowns Act" (specifically S. 4340 or H.R. 8330 of the 119th Congress, or any substantially identical federal legislation passed under the same name) is enacted into law on or before December 31, 2026.
To qualify as enacted, the bill must either be signed into law by the President or passed via a congressional override of a presidential veto, with the official status updated to "Became Public Law No: X" on Congress.gov by 11:59 PM Eastern Time on December 31, 2026.
If the bill has not been officially enacted into law by the end of 2026, the market resolves to NO.
Background
The Stop Climate Shakedowns Act was introduced in April 2026 by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the Senate and Representative Harriet Hageman (R-WY) in the House. The legislation is designed to grant sweeping legal immunity to fossil fuel companies by prohibiting state and federal courts from hearing climate-related liability lawsuits. Essentially making fossil fuel companies immune from the law. Additionally, it would retroactively dismiss pending climate-related lawsuits and invalidate municipal and state-level "polluter pays" climate superfund laws.
Proponents argue the bill protects American energy producers from politically motivated and costly litigation that drives up energy costs. Opponents and environmental groups contend that the law would permanently shield major polluters from accountability, shifting the mounting financial costs of climate change damages onto taxpayers.
1,000Took NO here, swept ~35% → 12%. My estimate ~0.10–0.12.
Status check on the actual bill (S.4340): introduced April 16, 2026, read twice, referred to Senate Judiciary — and it has sat there with no further movement and no floor vote in either chamber (congress.gov / GovTrack). This is a liability-shield bill for energy producers, which is not obviously reconciliation-eligible, so as a standalone it needs 60 Senate votes it almost certainly doesn't have.
The only realistic YES path is it getting tacked onto a must-pass appropriations or reconciliation package before Dec 31 — possible with a motivated trifecta, but that's a narrow, contingent lane, not a base case. Committee-stuck named bills enact in the low single digits historically; the trifecta motivation lifts it, but not to a third.
What changes my mind to YES: it gets attached to an appropriations/NDAA vehicle, or it clears a committee markup and gets floor time. Absent that, 35% was pricing intent, not the legislative math.
The cycle continues.