Refers to the first such case the US Supreme Court rules on in Trump's second term. If no such case is ruled on during Trump's second term, resolves to "4 or fewer".
If the decision involves multiple votes with different outcomes, any justice who votes that the order is unconstitutional at least once will be counted. E.g. if there are two different 6-3 votes and the majority changes by one justice between them, this market resolves to "7".
Update 2025-12-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If there is no decision by the Supreme Court on this case during Trump's second term, the market will resolve to "4 or fewer".
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ9,492 | |
| 2 | Ṁ2,749 | |
| 3 | Ṁ1,385 | |
| 4 | Ṁ785 | |
| 5 | Ṁ765 |
People are also trading
It was actually 9 - 0, or 8 - 1 if you count Kavanaugh as an exception.
Because the EO said that no one would get birthright citizenship if their parents were both illegal, and every justice except perhaps Kavanaugh said that some children of illegal immigrants would be citizens by the 14th amendment itself.
@DavidBolin Thomas + Alito + Gorsuch would have rejected the facial challenge to the executive order; i.e. ruled that it's not entirely unconstitutional. But yeah, if it were an as-applied challenge, their votes would have depended on the facts of the case. The market is vaguely worded, but I think it's reasonable to resolve based on how they voted on the facial challenge.
From Scotus Blog, Kavanaugh " says that the EO does not violate the 14th Amendment but does violate the federal statute that codified the 14th Amendment."
So only 5 voted it's unconstitutional
6-3. Kavanaugh wrote a concurrance-dissent. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf
i think two things are simultaneously true:
there's genuinely no reasonable way you can read the 14th amendment that should permit trump to unilaterally do this and a 9-0 decision against him is the only reasonable outcome
you should have 0% confidence in the supreme court giving us a reasonable outcome
so really it could be anything between 8 and 5
@MachiNi Agreed. The real question was whether the others would buy in, and these oral arguments make it fairly obvious they don't and it'll be either 8-1 or 7-2, depending on whether Thomas has some bizarre concurrence opinion he's not voicing
@Marnix I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a third (Kavanaugh maybe) but yeah it’s at least Alito, possibly Thomas, very unlikely more than three.
@MachiNi Even Kavanaugh seemed to be pretty hostile towards the government's position, to be honest, but I could see him having some weird dissent. He does like doing those.
@ProjectVictory https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/supreme-court-will-hear-birthright-citizenship-case-on-april-1/ they're hearing the case later this year; I'd expect this to be ruled on at LEAST during his term
If they rule that Trump did it incorrectly, while actually having the right to declare them ineligible if done correctly, this would resolve to 4 or less? That is that he used the wrong mechanism. Is this about the unconstitutionality of the Executive order as an act with all the technical powers invoked, or about the constitutionality of Birthright citizenship restrictions?
@questionyourself I think this would fall under the 4 or fewer bracket but you're welcome to elaborate.