Which of the above cases will have their holdings overruled by the Supreme Court before Donald Trump's term in office as president is scheduled to end?
Overruling the holding of that case will be considered as the resolution criteria, even if that case is not overruled in full. Upon request, and also if it is deemed necessary due to an upcoming Supreme Court case or petition, I will state the holding of the case so that it can be accurately traded on.
A case will count as overruled if a majority opinion of the court states that it is overruled even if the circumstances confronted in the case or not substantially similar or the same as the case being overruled. See Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 710 (2018). Additionally, a case will be counted as overruled if the court decides a case, presenting similar facts in a different manner than a prior case regardless of whether the Supreme Court states that the case has been overruled. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. 83, 101-105 (2020), Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023). However, a case will not be considered overruled, even if the factual, legal, or doctrinal basis for the decision in that case has been significantly eroded as long as the court doesn't go as far as to overrule the case. See e.g. Hernandez v. Mesa, 589 U. S. 93 (2020), Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. 120 (2017), Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004), Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).
Please note: that given the somewhat ambiguous nature of the Supreme Court's decisions, I will not trade on this market.
On Adding Answers:
I reserve the right to N/A any answer that is not in keeping with the spirit of this market
All answers must be real Supreme Court cases that have yet to be overruled
A case must have a clear holding
If a case has two holdings of equal importance on two different points of law, it may be split into two different markets.
If an answer is added after that answer has already satisfied the criteria to resolve "Yes" or "No" that answer will resolve N/A
1,000
3.00@AaronSimansky Holding: The Independent Counsel Act's restriction on the power of the Attorney General to remove an inferior officer only for good cause does not violate the Appointments Clause. The means of selecting the independent counsel (wherein the Chief Justice of the United States appoints a panel of three judges who choose the special prosecutor) did not violate the Appointments Clause.
@AaronSimansky Holding: Congress has the power to pass an act directing the seizure and disposition, within the control of the Executive Branch, of the papers and tapes of a former president.
@AaronSimansky Holding: Neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
@AaronSimansky Holding: Any statute that criminalizes the desecration of the American flag is unconstitutional.
@AaronSimansky Holding: A lawsuit seeking an injunction against a state official did not violate the sovereign immunityof the state, because the state official was not acting on behalf of the state when he sought to enforce an unconstitutional law.
@AaronSimansky Holding: An Arizona law providing authority for local law enforcement to enforce immigration law violated the enumerated powers of Congress and is preempted by federal statute. Arizona law enforcement may inquire about a resident's legal status during lawful encounters, but may not implement its own immigration rules.
@AaronSimansky In my understanding the holding is: "An action in federal court to enjoin a state official from violating the federal constitution or federal law is not prohibited by 11th amendment sovereign immunity." In my opinion, this 1908 case is very unlikely to be overturned or even seriously challenged in the next four years. It's one of the main mechanisms used to challenge unconstitutional state laws, and as such is often relied on by conservatives as well as liberals.
@jb456 yeah I’d say it’s one of the more unlikely ones, but there have been signs that the court has started to chip away its foundation
@AaronSimansky Holding: The Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of their rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney, at no charge if need be.
@AaronSimansky Holding: criminal defendants in felony proceedings have the right to council. Council must be provided at the states expense if the defendant cannot afford it.
@AaronSimansky Holding: The Fourth Amendment is applied to the state in the 14th Amendment requires that evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Be excluded from a criminal prosecution.
@AaronSimansky Holding: there is a right of action, implied in the constitution, against federal officers who violate an individuals constitutional rights
@AaronSimansky the states have the authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws, such measures were a legitimate exercise of the state's police power to protect public health and safety.
@AaronSimansky Holding: the 14th amendment creates a right to Jus soli citizenship with the limited exception of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory.
Note: While this case never explicitly addressed the question of whether the children of illegal immigrants born on American soil are citizens, the holding never reserved this question and it has long been understood to apply citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born on American soil. Accordingly, a decision to the contrary would be considered an overruling of this case.
@AaronSimansky Holding: The Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.
@AaronSimansky "privacy" is such a useless word - my first thought at hearing the phrase "right to privacy" is 4th Amendment search & seizure issues. Calling a right to use contraceptives "privacy" always stretched the English language to its breaking point. I honestly don't know what it would mean to say that "there is no right to privacy". The central holding of Griswold is that married couples have a right to use contraceptives.
@AaronSimansky Holding: Colorado's Amendment 2, which prohibited any governmental action designed to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it lacked a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.
@AaronSimansky To summarize more succinctly, I think the central holding is that a state government cannot prohibit local governments from enacting non-discrimination ordinances that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.
@RiverBellamy This might be over-simplistic, but I'm not gonna be policing different comments about the markets.