Resolves YES for any justice who votes against a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and NO for any justice who votes for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Resolves N/A for any justice not on the Court during the case, or who recuses themselves. Applies only to the first case revisiting the constitutional right to same-sex marriage by the end of the current presidential term (January 20, 2029), and resolves N/A if no such case occurs.
Justices' opinions on other related questions, such as whether the reasoning of Obergefell was correct, whether Congress has the right to legislate on same-sex marriage, whether private citizens can discriminate against same-sex couples, etc. are irrelevant. This resolves only based on how justices vote on the question of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
CLARIFICATION, August 11, 2025: If a justice votes to preserve the precedent that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, they resolve NO, even if it is only because of stare decisis.
CLARIFICATION, August 11, 2025: If a case presents multiple questions and a justice rules that there is no need to reach the question of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, they resolve N/A (unless there is an additional case presenting this question during this term, in which case I would resolve for them based on that case.)
If this is to be overturned, 4 people have to sign on to even hear the case that'll overturn it. I'm not sure they have that, but given the fact that this market N/As if no case gets heard, we have to assume a scenario where at least 4 are willing to hear the case.
Thomas and Alito are so obviously in favor of overturning that I think the only thing that'll stop either one is if they die, which just resolves N/A, so they might as well be at 100% YES here. Same for the liberal justices - basically 0% with Kagan at like maybe 2% since she was in the majority for 303 Media.
Roberts seems to have finally gotten over himself in terms of keeping up appearances. He briefly looked like he wanted to keep the Supreme Court looking nonpartisan, upholding precedent, that sort of thing - that doesn't look like it's strictly the case anymore, given Dobbs and Loper. If this case is given back to the court, I think his vote will entirely be based on how many other justices vote to overturn. I'm thinking that he wouldn't be the 5th vote in a majority to overturn, but that he would be the 6th. 45%
Kavanaugh is a mealy-mouthed little bitch that seems like he gives a shit about protecting his image for future generations, if only barely. I doubt he'd bite on any case that would overturn, but I have strong doubts he'd turn up the opportunity to write a mealy-mouthed little concurrence that stops just short if he's forced to pick between that and being opposed. He'd probably be one of the four. 50%.
I doubt Barrett would bite. She doesn't seem like she'd be interested in overturning, but if anyone's going to actually break in a ruling here it'd be her and Gorsuch. Both of them are kind of enigmas on this - I think Gorsuch is probably like, 20% (he wrote the majority opinion in Bostock, after all). Barrett feels slightly higher than Gorsuch, probably about 30%. I'm thinking she's probably one of the four, but maybe not.
In all - if we get to the point where this case actually gets revisited, it's probably going to be overturned. It's unlikely it'll get revisited.
@ZaneMiller I enormously respect the choice not to bet. I don't know how to decode your predictions though.
My main prediction is that no such case will occur and the market will resolve N/A, but you can infer the predictions I am confident about from my betting.