| Outcome | Probability | Yes Bid | Yes Ask | 24h Change | Volume | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| any 3rd Amendment case | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
This market asks whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a case that centrally raises the Third Amendment (the quartering of soldiers) before the current presidential term ends. The question matters because a grant would be an uncommon high-court treatment of a rarely-litigated constitutional provision and could shape modern doctrines about military presence and private property rights.
The Third Amendment has produced very few cases in American history and is seldom the primary basis for high-profile litigation; most modern disputes about military presence are resolved in lower courts or under other constitutional provisions. Whether the Supreme Court hears such a case depends on developments in lower courts (including circuit splits), petitions for certiorari filed by litigants, and how the Court prioritizes its docket amid competing national and legal events.
Market prices here reflect traders’ collective assessment of the likelihood that the Court will grant review of a case raising a substantial Third Amendment question before the presidential term ends, not an indication of how the Court would rule on the merits. Prices can move quickly after filings, circuit rulings, cert petitions, or major events that make Third Amendment issues salient.
For this event, a qualifying case is one in which the Supreme Court grants review to a matter where the Third Amendment’s protection against quartering of soldiers is a central legal issue—i.e., the Court agrees to decide a substantial question grounded in the Third Amendment rather than only mentioning it tangentially.
The market uses the official end of the sitting president’s current term—the point when the next president is sworn in—as the cutoff; whether a case qualifies depends on whether the Court has agreed to hear the case (or otherwise triggers the market’s settlement rules) before that time.
A petition for certiorari does not by itself count; the event requires the Supreme Court to grant review (or otherwise take the case in a manner the market defines as 'hearing' it), such as placing the case on its merits docket for briefing and argument or issuing a grant that leads to merits consideration.
Likely movers include published circuit-court opinions addressing Third Amendment claims (especially if different circuits disagree), sudden fact patterns that create novel legal questions about military or National Guard presence in private spaces, and cert petitions accompanied by significant amici or government responses.
Watch litigants filing cert petitions, the Solicitor General’s decision to file a brief or recommend review, circuit court panels and en banc rulings on relevant issues, prominent amici including state AGs or national organizations, and any Court announcements or additions to its cert list.