Will SCOTUS let parents challenge laws that displace them from their children’s gender-transition decisions?

If the Supreme Court, in International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson, rules parents have Article III standing to challenge laws or policies that displace their decision-making role regarding their children’s gender transitions and thereby create present or likely future impediments to parenting, then the market resolves to Yes. The Payout Criterion for the Contract encompasses the Expiration Values that the Supreme Court has ruled that parents have Article III standing to challenge a law or policy that deliberately displaces their decision-making role regarding their children’s gender transitions and thereby creates present or likely future impediments to their ability to parent their children as they deem best, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028. A reversal or vacatur followed by remand resolves to Yes only if the Court’s merits holding establishes that the parents have Article III standing under the circumstances described above. The market resolves to No if the Court holds that the parents lack standing, or if the case is dismissed, settled, found moot, DIG’d, or remanded without a merits holding establishing such standing.