Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump's tariffs?
$4.8M Vol.Ends 31 Dec 2026
$4.8M Vol.Ends 31 Dec 2026
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.
0x30ab…231d
You got 16 dollars profit buddy, you are not getting anything
Geolibertarian231d
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 😁
0x30ab…232d
Wrong
O3O.legacy.0233d
Nevertheless, it’s still puzzling that three justices actually voted to uphold it 😅
Priadka233d
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
Priadka233d
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
Geolibertarian233d
It's abundantly clear that the most partisan judges are the 3 left-wing ones.
thegoonie233d
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.
thegoonie233d
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.
0x30ab…233d
Well at least 3 of them are
Geolibertarian233d
LOL
Geolibertarian233d
TOLD YOU. All these delusional leftists really thought that the Republican appointed justices were corrupt stooges 🤣
rjpoly233d
Trump's a pedofile, gg
O3O.legacy.0233d
I share the glory of this victory with @thegoonie.
Pierce-81233d
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
0x7Ee195aBF39a340AbA2143CCC9C96E4075f9aF5e-1763139054107233d
6 to 3 ruling! Noice!
xyzDart233d
lmao
Islamobama233d
BAHAHAHAHHAHA
Roeman233d
Nice try
0x19745866A6AD9a72A2C680cfa9a3Bc1eEEd90533-1721365731725233d
hahaha, let'S go!
Snow-White233d
DUMFUQ DOMER hahaha
0x286cb3D1423ddB96B1FB277551908a9dd66896C5-1766973320110233d
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.
thechainsmokers234d
monkey logic
0x7Ee195aBF39a340AbA2143CCC9C96E4075f9aF5e-1763139054107234d
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.
.ethguy235d
the discord link in your twitter bio is expired/invalid bro
boabossu236d
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.
Clankerpac236d
[link removed]
boabossu238d
I am sure you believe the decision will be that tariffs are illegal. But explain why.
0x19974ce5980baE3d4c4D1a67CFce60C655492e36-1760671412706238d
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.
jackcates239d
So when the hell will this be resolved?
TravelExpense239d
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.
TravelExpense239d
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?
0x19974ce5980baE3d4c4D1a67CFce60C655492e36-1760671412706239d
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.
TravelExpense240d
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.
0x19974ce5980baE3d4c4D1a67CFce60C655492e36-1760671412706240d
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.
Pablo1241d
give me a win pls
thechainsmokers242d
your retarded
0x699f4eb794A4959D003E14d35E96ff0E58C920aD-1769600444670243d
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.
0x699f4eb794A4959D003E14d35E96ff0E58C920aD-1769600444670243d
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.
0x699f4eb794A4959D003E14d35E96ff0E58C920aD-1769600444670243d
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.
lifestyleswaggy243d
One would think if the majority of the justices believed the tariffs are illegal they would have paused or stopped the collection weeks ago by releasing the opinion. They haven't released an opinion in a case they granted expediated review on. It is more harmful to the tariff challengers that the tariffs are still being collected and used than it is for the government. In law they call this irreparable harm is more present with the tariff challengers. It is just common sense: [link removed]
lifestyleswaggy243d
One would think if the majority of the justices believed the tariffs are illegal they would have paused or stopped the collection weeks ago by releasing the opinion. They haven't released an opinion in a case they granted expediated review on. It is more harmful to the tariff challengers that the tariffs are still being collected and used than it is for the government. In law they call this irreparable harm is more present with the tariff challengers.
Clankerpac245d
going sideways for another month 🎉
jenkins25247d
If the supreme court was going to rule that the tariffs are illegal, they would have ruled weeks ago. [link removed]
studmuffin6969247d
Why would they be waiting if they going to rule for him. They usually only stall when they'd rule against him.
MeNoDatNutReelMuni255d
Late on this decision, late on Epstein, late on trump RX.... does this administration do anything other than talk?
thechainsmokers257d
The No true value is around 80-85c for this market. Connect with me on my twitter if you want to understand my thesis.
BullionareTrader258d
Because I am trading the odds. This market likely wont resolve for at least a little while
wizard456259d
ok but based on your logic you should be buying no, it clearly states in the rules that if the supreme court doesnt make a decision the market will resolve to 'no'
Clankerpac260d
bc he's a R
Orgo434260d
USA first
Barinho11261d
Why are you buying Yes then hahaha
Rebecce261d
Every day without a ruling is another day of uncertainty for supply chains.
BullionareTrader261d
I dont think the supreme court will rule on this. they will just keep delaying and delaying. Maybe until Trump has "signed great deals" with all countries and tariffs are no longer "necessary" therefore, the supreme court will never have to create a ruling.
100PctConcentratedPowerofMike261d
How do you mean?
BullionareTrader261d
suprised nobody has realized the courts wont rule on this
Pump261d
Obviously the damage to economy of not favouring the tariffs is more than favouring them at this point. Probably it will be acknowledged that the procedure is done incorrectly, but not reversed.
Pablo1262d
thay havent choice
JustTheFacts263d
If they were going to allow Trump to be a dictator, they wouldn't be about to rule Lisa Cook can stay
thechainsmokers263d
goldfish logic
bettor12263d
Don't buy trump's framing on this issue (it's mostly bullshit). For one thing, trump will just replace these tariffs with another more legal channel immediately (which only last 150 days). And the treasury has more than enough money to pay these back, and something similar happened in the past and the IEEPA court just helps refund.
jenkins25263d
Do you realize that instead of releasing the time sensitive decision(example the tariff case), the supreme court has so far released non-time sensitive decisions. But the supreme court granted expedited review in the tariff case precisely because a decision that the ieepa tariffs are illegal will lead to chaos in bond market and could dismantle of trade agreements. Most recently the president threatened new IEEPA tariffs on european countries. The court could have acted sua sponte to pause the tariff collection or it's use while a decision is being finalized for release. These are the facts. If the tariffs were truly illegal the supreme court would have been bound logically to act expeditiously to pause its continued use or collection. Indeed it could have released its opinion weeks ago. Despite the false claim that the tariff case is complicated, it is not in reality. All I am saying is look at the signs. It is all over
jenkins25263d
Do you realize that instead of releasing the time sensitive decision(example the tariff case), the supreme court has so far released non-time sensitive decisions. But the supreme court granted expedited review in the tariff case precisely because a decision that the ieepa tariffs are illegal will lead to chaos in bond market and could dismantle of trade agreements. Most recently the president threatened new IEEPA tariffs on european countries. The court could have acted sua sponte to pause the tariff collection or it's use while a decision is being finalized for release. These are the facts. If the tariffs were truly illegal the supreme court would have been bound logically to act expeditiously to pause its continued use or collection. Indeed it could have released its opinion weeks ago. Despite the false claim that the tariff case is complicated, it is not in reality. All I am saying is look at the signs. It is all over
GothABG263d
scammer
MrMu263d
Can someone tip me please 1 dollar will not change anything from you, maybe it change my life.
0x19974ce5980baE3d4c4D1a67CFce60C655492e36-1760671412706264d
It’s still a no, but in the dissent they’ll tell Trump how to do it (similar to the national guard deployments)
0x7EcbB869D5ab94C0CD15d894bd82b61b187D53F2-1759198882293264d
I am leaning towards no although Roberts' credibility is washed, I expect that he's been trying to look for a way to allow the admin to not pay back the tariffs. The bond market meltdown probably doesn't help.
MrMu264d
I’m in a tough spot right now and need help covering a loan. Any support, even a small tip, would mean a lot. Please, if you can, help me out!
studmuffin6969264d
Getting rid of the tariffs would help him.
thegoonie264d
There’s a reason no president has attempted this since IEEPA was created 50 years ago. If it were truly legal, someone would have used it long before now.
hotpotato881265d
Aight buddy, load up on the oh so cheap Yes shares then
HowlingPup265d
there name for them..... BitchMade
Geolibertarian266d
I wish all the delusional leftists proclaiming the Republican justices are Trump stooges would have put their money where their mouths are.
MarcR266d
JUST IN: Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent says he listened to the oral arguments and believes the Supreme Court will UPHOLD President Trump's sweeping tariffs
