This resolves Yes in the event that SCOTUS strikes down the circuit court’s ruling. It resolves No if the supremes uphold or remand the case. It could resolve to a percent if there is a peculiar partial agreement that carves out some constitutional protections but not others. This market can resolve based on the above case’s lineage, or any very similar case with the same implications.
1,000
3.00The name of this market doesn't match the description of this market.
"This resolves Yes in the event that SCOTUS strikes down the circuit court’s ruling. It resolves No if the supremes uphold or remand the case."
Whether SCOTUS reverses or affirms a case is not the same as whether they "rule that gender identity is not a protected class", because SCOTUS can reverse a lower court ruling on grounds other than that particular question. Also, I think you're using the term "remand" wrong; if SCOTUS reverses a ruling, they remand for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.
Don't forgot that Gorsuch claims that discrimination based on sexual orientation is discrimination based on sex. i.e. if you are against a man marrying a man, when you wouldn't be against a woman marrying a man, that means you against the first guy because he is a man rather than a woman.
He is consistent enough to realize that the exact same argument implies that discrimination based on gender identity is sex discrimination: if you are against someone saying "I am a woman" because they are a man, when you wouldn't be against someone saying "I am a woman" when they are a woman, you are against the first guy for being a man.
(Yes, the argument is obvious nonsense in the second case; but it was obvious nonsense in the first case too. But Gorsuch absolutely will stick to this.)