> the relevant stocks are up on the decision

Predictable result, unpredictable timing.

> they could just as easily have not stayed the injunction and just let the Supreme Court do it if they were inclined to

Hindsight is, as always, 20/20.

▲

AnthonyMouse 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Predictable result, unpredictable timing.

That wouldn't explain the prediction markets thinking the administration had a double digit chance of winning. The sure things go 99:1.

> Hindsight is, as always, 20/20.

It's not a matter of knowing which docket would be used. Why stay the injunction at all if you think the Supreme Court is going to immediately reverse you?

	▲	ceejayoz 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> That wouldn't explain the prediction markets thinking the administration had a double digit chance of winning. I am not a believer in the accuracy of prediction markets. > Why stay the injunction at all if you think the Supreme Court is going to immediately reverse you? They didn't think that. They thought SCOTUS would back them up faster. Back in November: https://fortune.com/2025/11/07/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-i... "That suggests a potentially lopsided 7-2 vote against Trump, who appointed Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh during his first term." We got 6-3. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/international-trade/trump-tari... "Though he normally aligns with Thomas and Alito, Gorsuch may be more likely to vote against Trump’s tariffs than Kavanaugh is, according to Prelogar. “It might actually be the chief, Barrett and Gorsuch who are in play,” she said." https://www.quarles.com/newsroom/publications/oral-arguments... "During the argument, several Justices expressed skepticism about the IEEPA expanding the President’s powers to encompass the ability to set tariffs." This was the widespread conclusion back then; that the justices were clearly skeptical and that the government was struggling to figure out an effective argument.