This market will resolve to "Yes" if the Supreme Court of the United States issues a decision that reverses, vacates, or otherwise overturns the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s August 29, 2025 decision in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, in which the Federal Circuit held that the tariffs imposed by Executive Orders 14193, 14194, 14195, 14257, and 14266 exceeded the President’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by December 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise this market will resolve to "No." If the Supreme Court dismisses the case as improvidently granted, denies certiorari, grants/vacates/remands without deciding the merits of IEEPA authorization, affirms by an equally divided Court, or vacates due to mootness, or if the parties settle the case this market will resolve to "No." For purposes of this market, the government prevails if the Supreme Court rules on the merits that the tariffs are authorized under IEEPA, or otherwise reverses or vacates the Federal Circuit’s holding that they are unauthorized under IEEPA, regardless of whether the Court remands for further proceedings on issues such as remedy or scope of relief. The government does not prevail if the Supreme Court affirms the Federal Circuit’s decision that the tariffs are unauthorized by IEEPA, even if the Court modifies or vacates portions of the judgment relating only to remedy or injunctive relief. The resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
polymarket bettors making a few grand on this while the commerce secretary’s family casually prints billions shorting his own boss. levels to this game tbh
polymarket bettors making a few grand on this while the commerce secretary’s family casually prints billions shorting his own boss. levels to this game tbh
TOLD YOU. All these delusional leftists really thought that the Republican appointed justices were corrupt stooges 🤣
Well at least 3 of them are
It's abundantly clear that the most partisan judges are the 3 left-wing ones.
Wrong
By all means, continue to believe that. Just as long as you keep putting your money where your mouth is and give me free money 😁
You got 16 dollars profit buddy, you are not getting anything
Trump's a pedofile, gg
I share the glory of this victory with @thegoonie.
Was a pretty simple decision with how the constitution is written. The courts job was not to determine whether tariffs are good for an economy. Their job was to determine legality based off of written law. Still can't believe they chose this path.
Nevertheless, it’s still puzzling that three justices actually voted to uphold it 😅
The bet wasn't on if it was legal or not the bet was on if they would put the country in this position to have to refund that money. They didn't put a stop to the tariffs to this day... this will be a sh**t show. oh well it was a good bet gg
It's actually a very simple process. Don't listen to the talking heads. Every import has a document called an Import Summary, that itemizes the tariffs. Each tariff has its own code. All IEEPA tariffs had a code associated with them. And all of that is stored in a database. The refunds can be made very easily IF they choose to make it easy. They will drag their feet and try to make everything think it's an impossible task though. At the end though, you can't steal money and not give it back to the people you stole it from, after you are caught.
6 to 3 ruling! Noice!
lmao
BAHAHAHAHHAHA
hahaha, let'S go!
DUMFUQ DOMER hahaha
It is just common sense, if they were going to rule the IEEPA tariffs are illegal they would have ruled long time ago. The court has shown in the past it can release opinions quickly if the case demands it. Example Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer . There they ruled against the government after 3 weeks of oral argument. Here with IEEPA tariffs, the court is treating it with almost no urgency even though it granted the motion to expediate the case.
monkey logic
Nice try
It takes 4 justices to grant certiorari to hear a case and it takes 5 justices to take up a case on an expedited track. It only takes 1 justice to delay the release of an opinion (but it will be no later than the end of the term in June/July). It's obvious what the decision is going to be.
I am sure you believe the decision will be that tariffs are illegal. But explain why.
Challengers argue that "regulating" isn't the same as "taxing." In almost every other law where Congress gives the President power to set tariffs (like Section 232 or Section 301), it uses explicit language and sets clear limits. The courts have noted it's unlikely Congress would grant such a massive, "unbounded" power through silence.
Section 232 doesn't use the word tariffs. It uses "adjust imports". Adjusting something is a form of regulation. IEEPA sets clear limits. Historical use of 'regulate commerce' as found in Article I includes power to tariff.
So when the hell will this be resolved?
[link removed]
A ruling that the tariff is illegal will mean the 1971 10% Nixon tariff is illegal because Nixon used the exact language in IEEPA. It will also mean that the Supreme Court Algonquin case must be overturned because the statue included the language, "adjust imports". The court held that, that specific language includes the imposition of tariffs. Adjust is a form of regulation. So if you look at the merits and the history of IEEPA, it is really hard to see how "regulate" in IEEPA does not include the imposition of tariffs. Someone please explain to me why I am wrong here? Logically? The only way the court rule against Trump's tariffs is if the court wants to be political about things. The logic and law seems to be pointing in only one direction here.
Can someone please explain the NO position here? I want to sell my YES position if someone can convince me why the NO position is likely to prevail. Nixon used the same language to impose tariffs in 1971. Plus the Algonquin case is very core to the case. Based on the merits, how will a court vote against the tariffs?
give me a win pls
Both district court and the court of appeals took less than 30 days to decide that the IEEPA tariffs are illegal. That is really fast and shows urgency to the case if you believed the tariffs are illegal. Both lower courts definitely didn't believe the case was that complicated and they struck down the IEEPA tariffs. You are seeing the opposite at the supreme court. They are not treating this case with any urgency as the lower courts have even though the IEEPA tariffs are still being collected. For me that is a sign that they would likely rule that they are legal.
your retarded
They could have just not agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis at all, so how do you explain that? The timing of the release of the decision has no bearing on the content.
On that note, the supreme court overrules the lower courts on more than 70% of the cases it decides. So deciding to hear it is another indication. Second, the timing of the release has to have a bearing on the content because it is an emergency particularly for the tariff challengers. The tariff is existential for many businesses and everyone knows that it will be messy if the court were to rule for the tariff challengers(ex. refund). So why would the court delay on a ruling for the tariff challengers. It will make no sense. If they were going to rule for the tariff challengers they would have ruled weeks ago. The court has in the past released opinions in less than 30 days after oral argument. It is now more than 3months after oral arguments. That is a sign that the decision will be a continuation of the status quo, i.e. continue taking ieepa tariffs.
As I said, if they just wanted to sit on it they would not have taken the case in an expedited fashion. It could have sat for a couple years. Within that context they will have to rule on this by June so it is still very rapid by Supreme Court standards.
It's been more than 3 months since oral argument and more than 5 months since the petition was accepted. It's been more than 5 months since the motion to expediate the case was accepted. The supreme court has released opinions on 10 cases thus far while ignoring the tariff case. It is ass if the court is treating the case as a normal case with no urgency. Which is a bad sign for the tariff challengers because they face the most irreparable harm as the tariffs are still being collected and used. It makes no sense to allow the tariff collection when all agree that a ruling that the IEEPA tariffs are illegal will lead to a messy situation. Why allow a messy to get worse by allowing something that is illegal to continue. It is just common sense.
Why would the supreme court release opinions on non-time sensitive cases so far but has not release time sensitive opinions like the tariff case. It can't be that because "the tariff case is too complicated". The court has ruled on much more complicated cases with great urgency than the tariff case. For example: the tiktok case and the recent one regarding the party candidate standing. It cannot be because it is preparing to rule against the tariff because if that were the case they would have ruled weeks ago as it impacts the tariff challengers more than the government. For Christ sake, the tariff challengers face business difficulty and other problems from the payment of the tariffs. There is only one possible explaination for the delay: IT IS BECAUSE the supreme court is likely to rule in favor of Trump's tariffs so there is no urgency to rule or release the opinion.