Resolution criteria
This market will resolve to YES if, by December 31, 2027, the Supreme Court of the United States issues a ruling affirming the International Court of Trade ruling that broad tariffs imposed under IEEPA by the executive branch are illegal. The ruling must explicitly state that such tariffs exceed the authority granted to the executive branch under existing laws. Verification will be based on official Supreme Court opinions published on its website.
While the ruling has technically not been appealed yet, an appeal seems highly likely. Nevertheless, edge cases are stated as follows: If the ICT ruling is not appealed to an appeals court by the deadline, this question will resolve YES. If the ICT ruling is appealed and upheld but not appealed to the Supreme Court by the government or not granted cert, this question will resolve YES. If the ICT ruling is appealed to an appeals court and overturned, but not granted cert or appealed to the Supreme Court, this question will resolve NO.
In the instance of a ruling that upholds the tariffs in part but not in whole, I will decide based on the general consensus of whether the ruling was largely favorable to the Trump administration or the plaintiffs. In the instance that the Court remands the decision to a lower court without issuing a firm ruling due to technical reasons, the question will remain open until a resolution is reached. All other unforeseen edge cases will be handled according to my discretion. As this is somewhat subjective, I will not bet on this market.
This is Obamacare case all over again - SCOTUS will not stop a presidents signature "Accomplishment"
The actual decision seems flimsy enough that the GOP nominated justices can disagree with (read it here) that the following
"investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest . . . ." (Bold from dissenting opinion)
does include tariffs (even though they're not mentioned explicitly - as laws usually do (this was the majority's argument).
Hilarious analysis by chatgpt which would be spot-on if Justices weren't just political hacks
To forecast, we look at recent writings of the justices on major questions, nondelegation, and executive trade powers:
Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas – strong on textualism and limits on delegation. Gorsuch especially has argued for reviving nondelegation (Gundy dissent). They will likely be sympathetic to the Cunningham concurrence: Congress didn’t clearly delegate tariff authority via IEEPA, so the President can’t invent it.
Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett – frequently invoke the major questions doctrine (see West Virginia v. EPA, NFIB v. OSHA). Tariffs affecting “nearly all goods from nearly every country”25-1812.OPINION.8-29-2025_25661… fit the kind of sweeping economic measure they say requires clear congressional authorization. They would likely affirm the Federal Circuit’s majority reasoning.
Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson – more deferential to executive power in foreign affairs. They may find the dissent’s reasoning more persuasive, emphasizing Congress’s choice to give presidents flexible emergency powers under IEEPA, consistent with Yoshida and past practice.
......
Forecast
Probable split: 6–3 affirmance.
Affirming Federal Circuit (no IEEPA tariff power, at least not unlimited): Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
Dissenting (upholding presidential tariff power under IEEPA): Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson.
(Never mind, I misread.)