The Supreme Court isn’t a game. Its decisions have profound consequences on the parties (almost always) and the public (sometimes). But we do have betting markets on elections—and elections too can have profound consequences. So why not have some fun guessing on the outcomes of early candidates for The Big Cases of OT24? In the first of what will become an October tradition (at least until I go bankrupt), I’m setting down my predictions on the outcomes of OT24’s 5 biggest cases so far, and the deep legal reasoning behind them. At the end of the term, I’ll grade myself and if I fail (less than 3/5 correct), then I’ll buy you a beer the next time you’re in New Haven. Yes, a beer for each of you (we’re skipping the chicken in every pot): just email me a screenshot of this post at the end of the Term to collect!

Here we go:

• US v. Skrmetti (No. 23-477): Do state laws prohibiting gender-transition medical treatments for minors (hormones, puberty blockers, surgeries) violate the Equal Protection Clause?
  • Prediction: No. Deep reasoning: Picture your favorite conservative justice’s face when reading the briefs. Multiply by five, maybe six.
• Medical Marijuana Inc. v. Horn (No. 23-365): Can a guy who bought CBD from a company that said it didn’t contain THC, then tested positive on a drug test and lost his job, sue the company under RICO? (More generally: Can you recover damages for economic harms resulting from personal injuries to “business or property” under RICO?)
  • Prediction: No. Deep reasoning: Civil RICO liability is the legal equivalent of The Incredible Shrinking Man. Eventually only Al Capone will be able to be sued. And only if he can be found alive.
• Garland v. VanDerStok (No. 23-852): Did then ATF exceed its authority by promulgating a rule that defines “firearms” to include the raw materials used to make “ghost guns” (the ones you—well, maybe not you—can assemble, or even 3D print, at home)?
  • Prediction: Yes. (I know, after the recent oral argument most folks think it’s going the other way. But what fun is there in going with what most folks think?) Deep reasoning: This time, meditate on another conservative justice’s face, then repeat until reaching a majority.
  • Bonus Prediction: A concurrence from Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Barrett, saying Congress could regulate this stuff without running afoul of the Second Amendment, but just hasn’t yet.
  • Unnecessary second bonus prediction: A line in one of the opinions saying something like “a gun frame is not a firearm any more than a hand is a man.”
  • Faux third prediction: A Thomas concurrence saying “actually ‘bureaus’ can’t make rules at all. The word ‘bureau’ is not in the Constitution. While the word was used in the state ratifying conventions, ‘bureau’ referred simply to a dresser temporarily holding representatives’ clothing.”
• Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (No. 23-1122): Can Texas require users of websites containing pornographic material to provide personal information to verify their age?
  • Prediction: Yes. Deep reasoning: There’s got to be something we all can agree on (or at least that five or six justices say we all should agree on).
  • Bonus Prediction: Dissent says the law chills constitutionally protected speech.
  • Unnecessary second prediction: after the decision, VPN use (masking users’ locations) spikes in Texas, as does web traffic to foreign websites that don’t worry too much about complying with Texas law.
• Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. (23-900): Does a plaintiff’s recovery of “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act allow a trial court to require a defendant to disgorge profits earned by its legally separate, non-party corporate affiliates?
  • Prediction: No. Deep reasoning: “Defendant” means defendant. Corporate formalities matter unless the veil is pierced, and Lanham Act plaintiffs can sue more than one defendant if they think they can pierce the veil.
  • Bonus Prediction: Since the defendants here apparently stashed all their money in subs and then stole the plaintiff’s name in a way that benefited the subs, the decision will be larded with cautions and tsk-tsks.

Disclaimer: My crystal ball broke the last time I moved. And these cases are way more complicated than I’ve related. But where else can you make rash predictions if not a blog post?