| Outcome | Probability | Yes Bid | Yes Ask | 24h Change | Volume | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| 1 | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| 2 | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| 3 | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| 4 | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| 5 | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| 6 | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| 7 | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| 8 | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| 9 | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
This market asks how many Supreme Court justices will vote for the position favored by former President Trump in the FTC removal case. The result matters because it speaks to how the Court will treat presidential removal authority and the structure of independent agencies.
The dispute centers on whether certain protections that limit the President's ability to remove agency officials are constitutional. The Court has a multi-decade precedent line (e.g., Humphrey’s Executor) and more recent cases (e.g., Seila Law and Free Enterprise Fund) that shape how justices analyze for-cause removal and separation-of-powers questions. Lower courts’ rulings, the case’s posture, and briefing all frame the issues the justices will decide.
Market prices summarize trader expectations about the number of justices who will side with the Trump position at the time of trading; they are not deterministic predictions of legal correctness. Prices can move as filings, oral arguments, leaks, or changes in legal interpretation and remedial posture occur.
The market offers discrete outcomes corresponding to the count of justices who vote for the Trump-favored position; given nine Supreme Court justices, the traded outcomes typically cover the full range of possible vote counts (0 through 9).
Resolution follows the Court’s official public action that shows how many justices sided with the Trump position—typically the majority judgment or an official opinion. Exact timing depends on when the Court issues its decision and on the market’s specific settlement rules; check the market rules for whether the judgment, slip opinion, or certiorari-stage orders control.
A majority for the Trump position would indicate the Court accepts the challenger’s claim (for example, limiting or eliminating certain for-cause protections), while a minority would mean the Court rejects or narrows that claim. The practical impact then depends on whether the Court issues a broad holding, a narrow statutory remedy, or a severability analysis limiting downstream effects.
Whether concurrences or partial-joins count depends on the market’s resolution criterion: some markets count only justices who join the judgment on the specific question presented, while others use any justice who assents to the operative legal holding. Always consult the event’s official resolution language to see how mixed or partial votes are handled.
Key movers include the Court’s docket activity (argument dates, reargument), notable amicus briefs or solicitor general positions, leaks or reporting about internal conference votes, shifts in remedial briefing, and any post-argument filings that clarify scope or remedy.