Resolution details change period (120 hours):
I'm open to changing the resolution details to better-uphold the spirit of the question (in my judgment) within 120 hours after I post the question, at which point the details will be frozen (even if they are later shown to be bad). No trading refunds will be effected for question details changes.

This market resolves NO in any circumstance where the outcome of Louisiana v. Callais does not create binding precedent.

This market resolves NO in any circumstance where the outcome of Louisiana v. Callais is not decided by 2026-10-17 at 11:59pm ET.
This market resolves YES if:

A majority of the Supreme Court holds in Louisiana v. Callais that EITHER:

1. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act's race-conscious redistricting requirements are unconstitutional; OR

2. Section 2 remedies must meet requirements that, if applied to Louisiana's factual circumstances, would prohibit the creation of the second majority-Black district (such as: requiring proof of intentional discrimination not present in this case, imposing time limits that have expired, applying strict scrutiny that this district fails, or other limitations that this specific remedy cannot satisfy based on the facts of this case).
   This criterion DOES NOT APPLY new requirements are such that, if Louisiana's redistricting process were repeated under the new legal standard with the same underlying facts about demographics and voting patterns, it is CLEAR that a federal court could still order creation of a second majority-Black district. If it is NOT CLEAR whether a federal court could have satisfied the new requirements imposed, and the map is invalidated for their lack, this criterion APPLIES.

This market resolves NO if:

A majority of the Court, in Louisiana v. Callais:

1. Remands for further proceedings, dismisses on jurisdictional grounds, or otherwise disposes of the case without reaching the constitutional questions about Section 2's redistricting requirements; OR

2. Decides the case on grounds that leave Section 2's remedial framework functionally intact; OR

3. Upholds Louisiana's 2024 map as a permissible remedy under Section 2, while holding that at least the relevant portions of Section 2 remain constitutional; OR

4. Preserves Section 2's current framework under Thornburg v. Gingles (allowing race-conscious redistricting based on proof of racially polarized voting and the three Gingles preconditions) even if invalidating the Louisiana 2024 map on other grounds.

Actions of any party or non-party subsequent to the ruling will have no effect on the resolution of the question, even if they serve to reduce or block the ruling's practical effect.

Key Clarification:

The question is whether Section 2 survives as a meaningful tool for requiring race-conscious redistricting. Minor adjustments to the Gingles framework resolve NO. Fundamental changes that would prevent most or all Section 2 redistricting claims resolve YES. Changes that are not sufficient to exclude Louisiana's 2024 map (even if requiring additional procedural steps) are by definition not "fundamental" and resolve NO.

Disambiguation Protocol:

If the resolution is unclear in my judgment, Anthropic's most-recent Opus model will be asked, with no system prompt and with Extended Thinking and Research enabled: "The Supreme Court's opinion in Louisiana v. Callais is attached. (attachment) Please read it carefully, and use online search for any legal details, terminology, or factual circumstances you are uncertain about. Based on the Court's holding, if Louisiana's redistricting process were repeated under the new legal standard with the same underlying facts about demographics and voting patterns, could a federal court still order creation of a second majority-Black district? Answer POSSIBLE if possible with the same basic factual showing. Answer NOT POSSIBLE if the new requirements would prohibit this remedy given Louisiana's actual circumstances. Provide only a POSSIBLE or NOT POSSIBLE answer." If the model produces an incoherent argument or chain of thought but clearly states a summary POSSIBLE or NOT POSSIBLE, their summary statement will stand.

An answer of POSSIBLE will result in a NO; an answer of NOT POSSIBLE will result in a YES.

If Opus refuses to provide a single answer, I'll ask it again. If it refuses again, I'll use the most-capable ChatGPT model with no system prompt and Deep Research enabled.

I will trade in this market, including after resolution is determined to my satisfaction but before the market is closed.