Early-term Court Predictions

Today is the first day of oral arguments and is my self-imposed deadline for committing to early predictions for the term as it exists. I plan to run another experiment or two. But these predictions represent my best guess at present. These guesses are from the minimalistic model that excludes all oral argument and amicus data. So they’re blind to what happened during argument today. And they don’t account for amicus briefs. We’re also limited to the cases that the Court has so-far agreed to take on the merits docket. So here are the predictions: Overall, the model predicts mostly reverses, which is to be expected. I suspect some of these reversal predictions to change to affirmances after oral argument. It’s worth noting a few of the blockbuster case predictions. 1. Tariffs. The model predicts the Court reverses the lower court in Learning Resources (81 percent probability), meaning that the President would retain his authority to wield tariffs. If right, it will be interesting to see how the Court squares that decision with the major questions doctrine. 2. Independent agencies. The model predicts that the Court reverses the lower court in Trump v. Slaughter (70 percent probability), meaning that Humphrey’s Executor is gone or sharply limited. 3. Conversion therapy. The model predicts that the Court reverses the lower court in Chiles v. Salazar, the conversion therapy case (85 percent probability). This means that the Court will use First Amendment considerations to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy. 4. Voting rights. In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court considers whether intentionally creating a majority minority district violates the 14th or 15th Amendment. The model predicts reversal with 85 percent probability. The case has a complicated history, with argument last term, too, but a reversal might mean that the VRA might be read as unconstitutional due to its race-awareness. 5. Gun rights. The Court considers Hawaii gun restrictions in Wolford v. Lopez, and a reversal would mean that the state’s regulation requiring permission to carry guns on private property is unconstitutional. The model predicts reversal with basically 88 percent probability. 6. Campaign finance. In NRSC v. FEC, the Court considers whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment. Brought by VP Vance while he was in Congress, a reversal would undermine what remains of campaign finance restrictions. The model predicts a reversal with 78 percent probability. 7. Trans Athletes. In West Virigina v. BPJ, the Court considers whether a West Virigina law that says only biological females can participate in women’s sports is unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit said the state law was unconstitutional, and the model predicts the Court will reverse that decision (with almost 96 percent probability). These predictions all line up with my priors, for better or worse!