Background:

On April 3, 2025, Emily Ley Paper Inc. (represented by NCLA) sued the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Case 3:25-cv-00464). The lawsuit challenges the legality of tariffs imposed on all imports from China via Executive Orders 14195 (Feb 1, 2025) and 14228 (Mar 3, 2025). The plaintiff argues President Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), claiming IEEPA does not authorize the imposition of tariffs, and that the action violates the Constitution's separation of powers (nondelegation doctrine). The plaintiff seeks to have these specific tariffs declared unlawful and their enforcement halted nationwide via an injunction or vacatur. After potential proceedings in lower courts, the case could reach the US Supreme Court. This market asks whether the plaintiff will ultimately succeed at the Supreme Court level in a way that stops these specific tariffs from being enforced nationwide by the end of 2027.

Resolution Criteria:

This market will resolve to "Yes" if before December 31, 2027:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court takes definitive action (e.g., issues a merits decision, denies certiorari thereby finalizing a favorable lower court ruling) in the Emily Ley Paper Inc. v. Trump case.

2. This Supreme Court action represents or finalizes a legal victory for the plaintiff (Emily Ley Paper Inc.) on the merits of its challenge to the legality or constitutionality of the China IEEPA tariffs (EOs 14195 & 14228).

3. As a direct result of this plaintiff victory finalized or affirmed by the Supreme Court, the nationwide enforcement of these specific China tariffs is halted (e.g., via a nationwide injunction being in effect or upheld, or through the vacatur of the relevant Executive Orders or HTSUS modifications as affirmed/ordered by SCOTUS).

This market will resolve to "No" if before December 31, 2027:

1. The plaintiff (Emily Ley Paper Inc.) has not achieved a final legal victory affirmed or finalized by the U.S. Supreme Court that results in the nationwide halting of the specified China tariffs.

2. The U.S. Supreme Court rules against the plaintiff on the merits of the tariff challenge, or affirms/finalizes a lower court ruling against the plaintiff.

3. The specified China tariffs remain in effect nationwide, irrespective of any Supreme Court action or inaction in this case by the deadline.

4. The case becomes moot, is settled, or is otherwise resolved without the plaintiff achieving the specific outcome defined in the "Yes" criteria via Supreme Court finalization by the deadline.

5. The Supreme Court has not taken the definitive action required to meet the "Yes" criteria by the deadline.

Clarification:

This market requires both a substantive win for the plaintiff regarding the tariffs' illegality, finalized at the Supreme Court level, AND the practical outcome of the tariffs being stopped nationwide as a result of that win. A procedural victory or relief limited only to the plaintiff is insufficient for a "Yes" resolution.