This market resolves Yes if a challenge to this ruling or a very similar ruling enters into the SCOTUS case queue before the end of 2025. After that, the hearing can occur at a later date, or the case can be dropped.
Update 2025-10-31 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For a case to count, it must specifically challenge "gender identity" as a protected class, not just challenge sex-based protections or regulations.
Update 2025-10-31 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Creator plans to resolve this market Yes based on the Hecox v. Little case (challenging transgender athlete restrictions) unless someone provides a clear reason not to within 48 hours. The creator considers the case's challenge to gender identity as a quasi-protected class sufficient for resolution, even though the case primarily involves sex-based distinctions in athletics.
1,000
3.00@SaviorofPlant I would need discrete information that this case challenges "gender identity" as protected rather than sex.
@Panfilo For Hecox v. Little, here are some excerpts from the petition for a writ of cert (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-38/317849/20240711163446892_Hecox%20v.%20Little%20Certiorari%20Petition.pdf):
The district court preliminarily enjoined the
Fairness Act so Hecox could try out for BSU’s women’s
cross-country and track teams. The court said the
Fairness Act “on its face discriminates between cis-
gender athletes, who may compete on athletic teams
consistent with their gender identity, and trans-
gender women athletes, who may not compete on
athletic teams consistent with their gender identity.”
App.232a–33a. For the court, “the physiological
differences” between males and females “do not
overcome the inescapable conclusion that the Act
discriminates on the basis of transgender status.”
In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit upheld an
injunction against the Fairness Act, holding that the
Equal Protection Clause prohibits Idaho from
drawing that sex-based distinction. In so doing, the
Ninth Circuit denied Idaho’s sovereign interests in
protecting spaces reserved exclusively for tens of
millions of female athletes. And its decision places the
Ninth Circuit firmly on the wrong side of two
entrenched circuit splits: whether sex is objectively
defined in Equal Protection jurisprudence, and
whether transgender identity is a quasi-suspect class.
I don't really have the legal knowledge to understand the distinctions here (I read through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification and "quasi-suspect class" seems related like a subtype of protected classes?), but it sure seems like this case is challenging it?
@SaviorofPlant @traders I plan to resolve this market Yes based on my amateur reading of this information unless someone can point out an obvious reason why I shouldn't within the next 48 hours. Remember, the case being in the queue is sufficient for its SCOTUS path. All we're debating is whether the quoted section indicates this case will act as a challenge to gender identity as a (quasi-)protected class.
@Panfilo imo its a pretty clear YES. bought up to 50% just to avoid risk cause I could see (ex ante) this question resolving incorrectly depending on the market creator (not you in specific, speaking in general terms) fairly easily
@Panfilo This should resolve YES, although the name of the market is somewhat misleading. (It's not your fault! You're using the term "gender identity" the same way the Fourth Circuit used it; it's the Fourth Circuit's fault for using it wrong.)
SCOTUS has established a framework for courts to figure out if a law violates the Equal Protection Clause. If a law treats one group of people differently from another group, the state must show that they have a "rational basis" for treating the groups differently, which is a very lax standard. Courts very rarely strike down any law under that standard.
However, there are certain types of classifications that are considered suspect because they have historically been associated with malicious discrimination by the government. So far, SCOTUS has only recognized two (and a half) such classifications: race, sex, and alienage (although the legal status of the alienage one is complicated for reasons that have nothing to do with this case.) If a classification is made on one of these bases, the courts are to strike it down unless the state can prove that it furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.
SCOTUS has never recognized an additional suspect classification besides these two and a half, and have ruled that some classifications, such as age and poverty, are not suspect. SCOTUS has never ruled on the question of whether transgender status is a suspect classification, although three justices have said it is (Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson) and three have said it is not (Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.)
With no precedent to bind them, the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit have both addressed the question, and have ruled that transgender status is a suspect classification. Confusingly, the Fourth Circuit used the term "gender identity" to name the suspect classification, but I much prefer the Ninth Circuit's terminology of "transgender status" - because the question is whether someone's sex matches their gender, not what gender they identify as.
SCOTUS has now granted certiorari (agreed to hear an appeal) on the case from the Ninth Circuit, so they'll likely issue a ruling on whether transgender status is a suspect class this term. (Unless they decide the case on other grounds.) So this should resolve YES.
It is obvious from the wording of this market that Panfilo is remarkably unqualified to be judging a legal market. They are using very little of the right language, to the point that I, a former constitutional lawyer, have no idea what the market is asking about. "[P]rotected class" under what law? different laws have different lists of protected classes. I don't know of any federal law under which gender identity is one, so speaking of a "challenge to gender identity as a protected class" is, um, odd to say the least. I also don't know what would qualify as the Supreme Court "receiving" a challenge or a challenge "enter[ing] into the ... queue", as these are not the terms lawyers use for any part of the process. Does this mean the Supreme Court receiving a cert petition (being asked to hear the case, in which case the answer is very like 'yes')? Or does it mean the Supreme Court granting the cert petition? Does action on the emergency docket count? If a market maker can't express a legal question more clearly than this, then they have no business making a market on any legal topic.
@Panfilo If Manifold ever takes any responsibility for their markets and market makers, maybe I will come to trust and like the site enough to make markets on it. Right now I don't.