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

7.0 pts (24h)US PoliticsOne-Off2a

KalshiComprobar disponibilidadKYC requerido2% de comisiónDatos de resolución verificadosCalibración aproximada

Probabilidad implícita actual

Sí 70%+7.0pt

Calidad del mercado

42 / 100

Baja calidad

Volumen 24h

44 €

Liquidez

472,4 €

Baja liquidez

Compra / Venta

64.0% / 71.0%

Spread

7.0 pt

Spread amplio

Datos de mercado

Actualizado hace 26 minutos

24 jul 26, 0:001 ago 28, 14:00

Tendencias

Resultado24hProbabilidad

Solo fondos simulados, sin dinero realNo es asesoramiento financiero

Resultado elegido

Yes70%

Apuesta (USDT)

Reglas

If the Supreme Court, in Beaird v.

United States, rules courts must independently interpret the Sentencing Guidelines or apply a narrower deference framework than Stinson when considering Guidelines commentary, 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 Beaird v.
United States, that Stinson v.
United States no longer correctly states the rule governing the deference courts must give commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines, including by requiring courts to exercise independent judgment or apply a materially narrower deference framework than Stinson’s rule that such commentary is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, is inconsistent with the guideline, or is a plainly erroneous reading of the guideline, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028.
The market resolves to No if the Court holds that Stinson still correctly states the governing rule.

Tendencia de volumen

$50

24 jul5d de datos28 jul

Mercados Relacionados

Will SCOTUS require 12-person juries for serious felonies?

4,4 €

Sí: 79%

KALSHI

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

0 €

Sí: 71%

KALSHI

Will SCOTUS reject narrow Free Exercise tests for Catholic preschools?

0 €

Sí: 84%

KALSHI

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

0 €

Sí: 61%

KALSHI

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

0 €

Sí: 0%

KALSHI

Will SCOTUS bar unpled affirmative defenses at summary judgment?

0 €

Sí: 66%

KALSHI

Activos en estos temas

BitcoinBTC$63,565.17-2.85%

EthereumETH$1,886.54-4.28%

SolanaSOL$73.43-4.23%

DogecoinDOGE$0.0704-3.55%

XRPXRP$1.06-4.61%

BNBBNB$565.28-1.79%

Noticias Relacionadas

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

Reglas

If the Supreme Court, in Beaird v.

United States, rules courts must independently interpret the Sentencing Guidelines or apply a narrower deference framework than Stinson when considering Guidelines commentary, 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 Beaird v.
United States, that Stinson v.
United States no longer correctly states the rule governing the deference courts must give commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines, including by requiring courts to exercise independent judgment or apply a materially narrower deference framework than Stinson’s rule that such commentary is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, is inconsistent with the guideline, or is a plainly erroneous reading of the guideline, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028.
The market resolves to No if the Court holds that Stinson still correctly states the governing rule.

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

7.0 pts (24h)US PoliticsOne-Off2a

KalshiComprobar disponibilidadKYC requerido2% de comisiónDatos de resolución verificadosCalibración aproximada

Probabilidad implícita actual

Sí 70%+7.0pt

Calidad del mercado

42 / 100

Baja calidad

Volumen 24h

44 €

Liquidez

472,4 €

Baja liquidez

Compra / Venta

64.0% / 71.0%

Spread

7.0 pt

Spread amplio

Datos de mercado

Actualizado hace 26 minutos

24 jul 26, 0:001 ago 28, 14:00

Tendencias

Resultado24hProbabilidad

Solo fondos simulados, sin dinero realNo es asesoramiento financiero

Resultado elegido

Yes70%

Apuesta (USDT)

Reglas

If the Supreme Court, in Beaird v.

United States, rules courts must independently interpret the Sentencing Guidelines or apply a narrower deference framework than Stinson when considering Guidelines commentary, 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 Beaird v.
United States, that Stinson v.
United States no longer correctly states the rule governing the deference courts must give commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines, including by requiring courts to exercise independent judgment or apply a materially narrower deference framework than Stinson’s rule that such commentary is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, is inconsistent with the guideline, or is a plainly erroneous reading of the guideline, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028.
The market resolves to No if the Court holds that Stinson still correctly states the governing rule.

Tendencia de volumen

$50

24 jul5d de datos28 jul

Mercados Relacionados

Will SCOTUS require 12-person juries for serious felonies?

4,4 €

Sí: 79%

KALSHI

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

0 €

Sí: 71%

KALSHI

Will SCOTUS reject narrow Free Exercise tests for Catholic preschools?

0 €

Sí: 84%

KALSHI

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

0 €

Sí: 61%

KALSHI

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

0 €

Sí: 0%

KALSHI

Will SCOTUS bar unpled affirmative defenses at summary judgment?

0 €

Sí: 66%

KALSHI

Activos en estos temas

BitcoinBTC$63,565.17-2.85%

EthereumETH$1,886.54-4.28%

SolanaSOL$73.43-4.23%

DogecoinDOGE$0.0704-3.55%

XRPXRP$1.06-4.61%

BNBBNB$565.28-1.79%

Noticias Relacionadas

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

Reglas

If the Supreme Court, in Beaird v.

United States, rules courts must independently interpret the Sentencing Guidelines or apply a narrower deference framework than Stinson when considering Guidelines commentary, 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 Beaird v.
United States, that Stinson v.
United States no longer correctly states the rule governing the deference courts must give commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines, including by requiring courts to exercise independent judgment or apply a materially narrower deference framework than Stinson’s rule that such commentary is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, is inconsistent with the guideline, or is a plainly erroneous reading of the guideline, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028.
The market resolves to No if the Court holds that Stinson still correctly states the governing rule.