Will SCOTUS bar unpled affirmative defenses at summary judgment?

US PoliticsOne-Off2y

KalshiCheck availabilityKYC required2% feeVerified resolution dataRoughly calibrated

Current implied probability

Yes 66%

Market quality

40 / 100

Low quality

24h Volume

Liquidity

$200

Low liquidity

Bid / Ask

62.0% / 69.0%

Spread

7.0 pt

Wide spread

Market data

Updated 26 minutes ago

Jul 24, 26, 12:00 AMAug 1, 28, 2:00 PM

Trends

Outcome24hChance

Paper funds only — no real moneyNot financial advice

Selected outcome

Yes66%

Stake (USDT)

Rules

If the Supreme Court, in Younge v.

Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, rules a defendant may not assert an affirmative defense omitted from its answer as the basis for summary judgment without amending or seeking to amend the answer, including when Rule 16(b)(4) would bar amendment, 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, in Younge v.
Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, that a defendant whose answer omitted an affirmative defense may not assert that defense as the basis for summary judgment without amending or seeking to amend the answer, including where Rule 16(b)(4) would bar the amendment, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028.
The market resolves to No if the Court holds that a defendant may rely on an unpled affirmative defense at summary judgment without amending or seeking to amend its answer, whether categorically or under a case-specific standard.
If the case is dismissed, found to have been improvidently granted, or otherwise disposed of without a merits ruling on the Question Presented, or remanded without resolving that question, the market resolves to No.

Volume trend

$200

Jul 242d of dataJul 25

Related Markets

Will SCOTUS overturn or narrow Stinson deference to federal sentencing-guideline commentary?

$50

Yes: 70%

KALSHI

Will SCOTUS require 12-person juries for serious felonies?

Yes: 79%

KALSHI

Will the Supreme Court bar Boulder’s state-law climate claims against Suncor and Exxon?

Yes: 71%

KALSHI

Will SCOTUS reject narrow Free Exercise tests for Catholic preschools?

Yes: 84%

KALSHI

Will SCOTUS allow Arizona’s citizenship-proof and pre-election noncitizen-removal rules?

Yes: 61%

KALSHI

Will SCOTUS bar contempt for conduct not clearly prohibited by an injunction?

Yes: 0%

KALSHI

Active in these topics

BitcoinBTC$63,425.14-2.66%

EthereumETH$1,881.74-4.26%

SolanaSOL$73.27-3.98%

DogecoinDOGE$0.0702-3.40%

XRPXRP$1.06-4.63%

BNBBNB$565.30-1.63%

Related News

Polymarket: Vance leads 2028 at 19.85% as pricing trend softensBlockchain.News

White House pushes Senate Democrats to take 'historic' crypto Clarity Act ethics dealCoindesk

Senate nears bipartisan CLARITY Act deal after ethics breakthroughCrypto News

White House agrees to ethics provisions in market structure billCointelegraph

Polymarket odds show Vance at 19.85% as Epstein files critique hits tapeBlockchain.News

Dick Durbin accuses Todd Blanche of shielding Trump’s crypto empireCrypto News

Rules

If the Supreme Court, in Younge v.

Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, rules a defendant may not assert an affirmative defense omitted from its answer as the basis for summary judgment without amending or seeking to amend the answer, including when Rule 16(b)(4) would bar amendment, 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, in Younge v.
Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, that a defendant whose answer omitted an affirmative defense may not assert that defense as the basis for summary judgment without amending or seeking to amend the answer, including where Rule 16(b)(4) would bar the amendment, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028.
The market resolves to No if the Court holds that a defendant may rely on an unpled affirmative defense at summary judgment without amending or seeking to amend its answer, whether categorically or under a case-specific standard.
If the case is dismissed, found to have been improvidently granted, or otherwise disposed of without a merits ruling on the Question Presented, or remanded without resolving that question, the market resolves to No.

Will SCOTUS bar unpled affirmative defenses at summary judgment?

US PoliticsOne-Off2y

KalshiCheck availabilityKYC required2% feeVerified resolution dataRoughly calibrated

Current implied probability

Yes 66%

Market quality

40 / 100

Low quality

24h Volume

Liquidity

$200

Low liquidity

Bid / Ask

62.0% / 69.0%

Spread

7.0 pt

Wide spread

Market data

Updated 26 minutes ago

Jul 24, 26, 12:00 AMAug 1, 28, 2:00 PM

Trends

Outcome24hChance

Paper funds only — no real moneyNot financial advice

Selected outcome

Yes66%

Stake (USDT)

Rules

If the Supreme Court, in Younge v.

Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, rules a defendant may not assert an affirmative defense omitted from its answer as the basis for summary judgment without amending or seeking to amend the answer, including when Rule 16(b)(4) would bar amendment, 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, in Younge v.
Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, that a defendant whose answer omitted an affirmative defense may not assert that defense as the basis for summary judgment without amending or seeking to amend the answer, including where Rule 16(b)(4) would bar the amendment, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028.
The market resolves to No if the Court holds that a defendant may rely on an unpled affirmative defense at summary judgment without amending or seeking to amend its answer, whether categorically or under a case-specific standard.
If the case is dismissed, found to have been improvidently granted, or otherwise disposed of without a merits ruling on the Question Presented, or remanded without resolving that question, the market resolves to No.

Volume trend

$200

Jul 242d of dataJul 25

Related Markets

Will SCOTUS overturn or narrow Stinson deference to federal sentencing-guideline commentary?

$50

Yes: 70%

KALSHI

Will SCOTUS require 12-person juries for serious felonies?

Yes: 79%

KALSHI

Will the Supreme Court bar Boulder’s state-law climate claims against Suncor and Exxon?

Yes: 71%

KALSHI

Will SCOTUS reject narrow Free Exercise tests for Catholic preschools?

Yes: 84%

KALSHI

Will SCOTUS allow Arizona’s citizenship-proof and pre-election noncitizen-removal rules?

Yes: 61%

KALSHI

Will SCOTUS bar contempt for conduct not clearly prohibited by an injunction?

Yes: 0%

KALSHI

Active in these topics

BitcoinBTC$63,425.14-2.66%

EthereumETH$1,881.74-4.26%

SolanaSOL$73.27-3.98%

DogecoinDOGE$0.0702-3.40%

XRPXRP$1.06-4.63%

BNBBNB$565.30-1.63%

Related News

Polymarket: Vance leads 2028 at 19.85% as pricing trend softensBlockchain.News

White House pushes Senate Democrats to take 'historic' crypto Clarity Act ethics dealCoindesk

Senate nears bipartisan CLARITY Act deal after ethics breakthroughCrypto News

White House agrees to ethics provisions in market structure billCointelegraph

Polymarket odds show Vance at 19.85% as Epstein files critique hits tapeBlockchain.News

Dick Durbin accuses Todd Blanche of shielding Trump’s crypto empireCrypto News

Rules

If the Supreme Court, in Younge v.

Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, rules a defendant may not assert an affirmative defense omitted from its answer as the basis for summary judgment without amending or seeking to amend the answer, including when Rule 16(b)(4) would bar amendment, 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, in Younge v.
Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, that a defendant whose answer omitted an affirmative defense may not assert that defense as the basis for summary judgment without amending or seeking to amend the answer, including where Rule 16(b)(4) would bar the amendment, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028.
The market resolves to No if the Court holds that a defendant may rely on an unpled affirmative defense at summary judgment without amending or seeking to amend its answer, whether categorically or under a case-specific standard.
If the case is dismissed, found to have been improvidently granted, or otherwise disposed of without a merits ruling on the Question Presented, or remanded without resolving that question, the market resolves to No.