The Supreme Court's oral arguments this week in Trump v. Barbara, challenging President Trump's January 2025 executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, have solidified trader consensus at 78.5% for SCOTUS striking it down. Lower federal courts uniformly blocked the EO as unconstitutional, citing 1898 precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirming 14th Amendment protections regardless of parental status. Legal experts across ideologies argue executive action cannot unilaterally reinterpret constitutional text without amendment, outweighing administration claims of originalist intent. While the conservative majority could surprise, entrenched jurisprudence and procedural hurdles drive the implied probability, with a ruling expected by June.
Resumen experimental generado por IA con datos de Polymarket · ActualizadoNUEVO
$15,257 Vol.
NUEVO
$15,257 Vol.
31 ago 2026
NUEVO
$15,257 Vol.
NUEVO
$15,257 Vol.
31 ago 2026
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the merits of Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/) which directed that children born in the United States would not automatically receive U.S. citizenship if their parents were in the country unlawfully or on certain temporary visas.
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the Supreme Court of the United States rules that Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” may not be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States, by July 30, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.
A qualifying ruling must clearly and finally rule that the order, in whole, is unconstitutional or cannot lawfully take effect, or that the order cannot be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States.
Procedural rulings that do not clearly resolve whether the order may lawfully be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States will not be sufficient to resolve this market to “Yes”.
If a Supreme Court ruling on this case clearly and finally permits the order to deny citizenship to children born in the United States, this market will resolve to “No”.
If the Executive Order is withdrawn prior to any qualifying Supreme Court ruling on the order, this market will resolve to “No”.
The resolution source for this market will be official information from the Supreme Court of the United States; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.The Supreme Court's oral arguments this week in Trump v. Barbara, challenging President Trump's January 2025 executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, have solidified trader consensus at 78.5% for SCOTUS striking it down. Lower federal courts uniformly blocked the EO as unconstitutional, citing 1898 precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirming 14th Amendment protections regardless of parental status. Legal experts across ideologies argue executive action cannot unilaterally reinterpret constitutional text without amendment, outweighing administration claims of originalist intent. While the conservative majority could surprise, entrenched jurisprudence and procedural hurdles drive the implied probability, with a ruling expected by June.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the merits of Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/) which directed that children born in the United States would not automatically receive U.S. citizenship if their parents were in the country unlawfully or on certain temporary visas.
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the Supreme Court of the United States rules that Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” may not be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States, by July 30, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.
A qualifying ruling must clearly and finally rule that the order, in whole, is unconstitutional or cannot lawfully take effect, or that the order cannot be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States.
Procedural rulings that do not clearly resolve whether the order may lawfully be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States will not be sufficient to resolve this market to “Yes”.
If a Supreme Court ruling on this case clearly and finally permits the order to deny citizenship to children born in the United States, this market will resolve to “No”.
If the Executive Order is withdrawn prior to any qualifying Supreme Court ruling on the order, this market will resolve to “No”.
The resolution source for this market will be official information from the Supreme Court of the United States; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the Supreme Court of the United States rules that Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” may not be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States, by July 30, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.
A qualifying ruling must clearly and finally rule that the order, in whole, is unconstitutional or cannot lawfully take effect, or that the order cannot be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States.
Procedural rulings that do not clearly resolve whether the order may lawfully be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States will not be sufficient to resolve this market to “Yes”.
If a Supreme Court ruling on this case clearly and finally permits the order to deny citizenship to children born in the United States, this market will resolve to “No”.
If the Executive Order is withdrawn prior to any qualifying Supreme Court ruling on the order, this market will resolve to “No”.
The resolution source for this market will be official information from the Supreme Court of the United States; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
Mercado abierto: Mar 31, 2026, 2:54 PM ET
Volumen
$15,257Fecha de finalización
31 ago 2026Mercado abierto
Mar 31, 2026, 2:54 PM ETResolver
0x65070BE91...The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the merits of Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/) which directed that children born in the United States would not automatically receive U.S. citizenship if their parents were in the country unlawfully or on certain temporary visas.
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the Supreme Court of the United States rules that Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” may not be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States, by July 30, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.
A qualifying ruling must clearly and finally rule that the order, in whole, is unconstitutional or cannot lawfully take effect, or that the order cannot be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States.
Procedural rulings that do not clearly resolve whether the order may lawfully be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States will not be sufficient to resolve this market to “Yes”.
If a Supreme Court ruling on this case clearly and finally permits the order to deny citizenship to children born in the United States, this market will resolve to “No”.
If the Executive Order is withdrawn prior to any qualifying Supreme Court ruling on the order, this market will resolve to “No”.
The resolution source for this market will be official information from the Supreme Court of the United States; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.The Supreme Court's oral arguments this week in Trump v. Barbara, challenging President Trump's January 2025 executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, have solidified trader consensus at 78.5% for SCOTUS striking it down. Lower federal courts uniformly blocked the EO as unconstitutional, citing 1898 precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirming 14th Amendment protections regardless of parental status. Legal experts across ideologies argue executive action cannot unilaterally reinterpret constitutional text without amendment, outweighing administration claims of originalist intent. While the conservative majority could surprise, entrenched jurisprudence and procedural hurdles drive the implied probability, with a ruling expected by June.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the merits of Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/) which directed that children born in the United States would not automatically receive U.S. citizenship if their parents were in the country unlawfully or on certain temporary visas.
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the Supreme Court of the United States rules that Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” may not be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States, by July 30, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.
A qualifying ruling must clearly and finally rule that the order, in whole, is unconstitutional or cannot lawfully take effect, or that the order cannot be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States.
Procedural rulings that do not clearly resolve whether the order may lawfully be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States will not be sufficient to resolve this market to “Yes”.
If a Supreme Court ruling on this case clearly and finally permits the order to deny citizenship to children born in the United States, this market will resolve to “No”.
If the Executive Order is withdrawn prior to any qualifying Supreme Court ruling on the order, this market will resolve to “No”.
The resolution source for this market will be official information from the Supreme Court of the United States; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the Supreme Court of the United States rules that Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” may not be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States, by July 30, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.
A qualifying ruling must clearly and finally rule that the order, in whole, is unconstitutional or cannot lawfully take effect, or that the order cannot be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States.
Procedural rulings that do not clearly resolve whether the order may lawfully be enforced to deny citizenship to children born in the United States will not be sufficient to resolve this market to “Yes”.
If a Supreme Court ruling on this case clearly and finally permits the order to deny citizenship to children born in the United States, this market will resolve to “No”.
If the Executive Order is withdrawn prior to any qualifying Supreme Court ruling on the order, this market will resolve to “No”.
The resolution source for this market will be official information from the Supreme Court of the United States; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
Volumen
$15,257Fecha de finalización
31 ago 2026Mercado abierto
Mar 31, 2026, 2:54 PM ETResolver
0x65070BE91...The Supreme Court's oral arguments this week in Trump v. Barbara, challenging President Trump's January 2025 executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, have solidified trader consensus at 78.5% for SCOTUS striking it down. Lower federal courts uniformly blocked the EO as unconstitutional, citing 1898 precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirming 14th Amendment protections regardless of parental status. Legal experts across ideologies argue executive action cannot unilaterally reinterpret constitutional text without amendment, outweighing administration claims of originalist intent. While the conservative majority could surprise, entrenched jurisprudence and procedural hurdles drive the implied probability, with a ruling expected by June.
Resumen experimental generado por IA con datos de Polymarket · Actualizado
Cuidado con los enlaces externos.
Cuidado con los enlaces externos.
Preguntas frecuentes