Verbatim from the venue. The analyst must quote these, never paraphrase.
If the Supreme Court, in Jouppi v. Alaska, rules courts must consider the gravity of the specific defendant’s wrongdoing, rather than evaluating the underlying offense purely in the abstract, when applying the Excessive Fines Clause, then the market resolves to Yes.
The Payout Criterion for the Contract encompasses the Expiration Values that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that, in determining whether a fine contravenes the Excessive Fines Clause, courts must consider the gravity of the specific defendant’s wrongdoing and may not evaluate the gravity of the underlying offense purely in the abstract, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028. A remand accompanied by a merits ruling establishing this requirement resolves to Yes. If the Court holds that courts may assess the offense’s gravity purely in the abstract, dismisses the case, dismisses the writ as improvidently granted, or remands or otherwise disposes of the case without a merits ruling establishing this requirement, the market resolves to No.
early_close_conditionThis market will close and expire early if the event occurs.
348
98¢
ask20085¢
spread10¢mid 80¢
bid20075¢
bid25017¢
bid57916¢
bid53¢
bid501¢
Yes bid (no ask)SizeYes
Time
Yes
No
Size
Taker
2mo ago
76¢
24¢
0.11
no
2mo ago
84¢
16¢
0.11
yes
event_ticker
KXSCOTUSCASE-JOUALA28
exchange_index0
expected_expiration_time2028-08-01T14:00:00Z
expiration_time2028-08-01T14:00:00Z
expiration_value
last_price_dollars0.7600
latest_expiration_time2028-08-01T14:00:00Z
liquidity_dollars0.0000
market_typebinary
no_ask_dollars0.2500
no_bid_dollars0.1500
no_sub_titleBefore Aug 1, 2028
notional_value_dollars1.0000
occurrence_datetime2028-08-01T14:00:00Z
open_interest_fp0.00
open_time2026-07-24T00:00:00Z
previous_price_dollars0.7600
previous_yes_ask_dollars0.9800
previous_yes_bid_dollars0.0200
price_level_structurelinear_cent
price_ranges1
[0]3
end1.0000
start0.0000
step0.0100
result
rules_primaryIf the Supreme Court, in Jouppi v. Alaska, rules courts must consider the gravity of the specific defendant’s wrongdoing, rather than evaluating the underlying offense purely in the abstract, when applying the Excessive Fines Clause, then the market resolves to Yes.
rules_secondaryThe Payout Criterion for the Contract encompasses the Expiration Values that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that, in determining whether a fine contravenes the Excessive Fines Clause, courts must consider the gravity of the specific defendant’s wrongdoing and may not evaluate the gravity of the underlying offense purely in the abstract, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028. A remand accompanied by a merits ruling establishing this requirement resolves to Yes. If the Court holds that courts may assess the offense’s gravity purely in the abstract, dismisses the case, dismisses the writ as improvidently granted, or remands or otherwise disposes of the case without a merits ruling establishing this requirement, the market resolves to No.
settlement_timer_seconds1800
statusactive
tickerKXSCOTUSCASE-JOUALA28
titleWill the Supreme Court rule in favor of Kenneth J. Jouppi in Jouppi v. Alaska