Will SCOTUS require courts to consider a defendant’s specific wrongdoing in excessive-fines cases?

If the Supreme Court, in Jouppi v. Alaska, rules courts must consider the gravity of the specific defendant’s wrongdoing, rather than evaluating the underlying offense purely in the abstract, when applying the Excessive Fines Clause, then the market resolves to Yes. The Payout Criterion for the Contract encompasses the Expiration Values that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that, in determining whether a fine contravenes the Excessive Fines Clause, courts must consider the gravity of the specific defendant’s wrongdoing and may not evaluate the gravity of the underlying offense purely in the abstract, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028. A remand accompanied by a merits ruling establishing this requirement resolves to Yes. If the Court holds that courts may assess the offense’s gravity purely in the abstract, dismisses the case, dismisses the writ as improvidently granted, or remands or otherwise disposes of the case without a merits ruling establishing this requirement, the market resolves to No.