# Will the Supreme Court hear a 3rd Amendment case before Trump's term ends?

Before Jan 2029

Updated: April 29, 2026

Category: Politics

Tags: SCOTUS & courts

HTML: /markets/politics/scotus-courts/will-the-supreme-court-hear-a-3rd-amendment-case-before-trump-s-term-ends/

## Short Answer

**Key takeaway.** Both the **model** and the **market** expect that the Supreme Court will hear a 3rd Amendment case before Trump's term ends, with no compelling evidence of mispricing.

## Key Claims (January 2026)

**- - No active Circuit Court cases present a Third Amendment split.** - No direct evidence of originalist justices' Third Amendment interest exists.
- Project 2025 advocates for deploying military personnel domestically.
- Third Amendment Lawyers Association actively seeks modern test cases.
- An incident by June 2025 is key for a pre-2029 SCOTUS hearing.
- The **market** saw an 8.5 percentage point drop on April 24, 2026.

### Why This Matters (GEO)

- AI agents extract claims, not arguments.
- Improves citation probability in summaries and answer cards.
- Enables fact stitching across multiple sources.

## Executive Verdict

**Key takeaway.** **Model**'s **9%** **probability** suggests an 8.3x payout at 12c, implying **market** overestimates given no circuit split or originalist interest.

### Who Wins and Why

| Outcome | Market | Model | Why |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| any 3rd Amendment case | 12.0% | 9.0% | The evidence confirms the market's low probability, as there are no currently active U.S. Circuit Court lawsuits identified that directly challenge the Third Amendment with a high probability of creating a circuit split, a key factor for Supreme Court review. |

## Model vs Market

- Model Probability: 9.0% (Yes)
- Market Probability: 12.0% (Yes)
- Yes refers to: any 3rd Amendment case
- Edge: -3.0pp
- Expected Return: -24.9%
- R-Score: -0.30
- Total Volume: $6,525
- 24h Volume: $294
- Open Interest: $4,150

- Expiration: January 20, 2029

## Market Behavior & Price Dynamics

This market has exhibited a predominantly sideways trend, trading within a relatively narrow 10-point range for its entire history. The price has fluctuated between a low of 5.1% and a high of 15.0%, indicating a stable, albeit low, perceived probability of the event occurring. The most significant price movement was a sharp 8.5 percentage point drop on April 24, 2026, when the probability fell from 15.0% to 6.5%. The provided context does not include any specific news or developments that would explain this sudden decrease in perceived likelihood.

The market appears to have low liquidity, with a total volume of only 1,425 contracts traded across its lifespan. The minimal volume suggests that trading is sporadic and market conviction may be weak, making the price susceptible to large shifts from relatively small trades or changes in open orders. Prior to the drop, the 15.0% mark acted as a clear resistance level, while the 5.1% price point has served as the market's support floor. Overall, the chart indicates a persistent bearish sentiment. Traders have consistently priced this as a long-shot event, and the significant, unexplained drop in April 2026 has since established a new, even lower trading range, with the current price of 7.0% reflecting this diminished expectation.

## Significant Price Movements

#### 📉 April 24, 2026: 8.5pp drop

Price decreased from 15.0% to 6.5%

**Outcome:** any 3rd Amendment case

**What happened:** No supporting research available for this anomaly.

## Contract Snapshot

This market resolves to YES if the Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari for a case explicitly raising a Third Amendment claim by January 20, 2029. The Third Amendment claim must be explicitly presented in the petition, the lower court decision being appealed, or the Supreme Court's order granting review, not merely mentioned in passing or in amicus briefs. Otherwise, the market resolves to NO by the January 20, 2029 deadline, with the outcome verified from the Supreme Court website.

## Market Discussion

Limited public discussion available for this market.

## Market Data

| Contract | Yes Bid | Yes Ask | Last Price | Volume | Open Interest |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| any 3rd Amendment case | 7% | 12% | 12% | $6,525 | $4,150 |

## Are There Active Circuit Court Cases Challenging Third Amendment Quartering?

Landmark Third Amendment Precedent | Engblom v. Carey (2d Cir. 1982) [[^]](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/677/957/231684/) |
Definition of a Circuit Split | Conflicting rulings by two or more U.S. Courts of Appeals [[^]](https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48846) |
Engblom v. Carey Case Origin | New York correctional officers' dormitories used for National Guard during strike [[^]](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/677/957/231684/) |

**No active Circuit Court lawsuits present a Third Amendment circuit split**

No active Circuit Court lawsuits present a Third Amendment circuit split. Current research indicates no specific, active U.S. Circuit Court lawsuits challenging police or National Guard use of private property are highly likely to create a "circuit split" on the modern application of the Third Amendment. A "circuit split" occurs when two or more U.S. Courts of Appeals issue conflicting rulings on the same legal question, which is a key factor for the Supreme Court to grant review [[^]](https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48846). The case of Engblom v. Carey (2d Cir. 1982) remains the primary precedent for the Third Amendment's applicability to the states and its protection for individuals [[^]](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/677/957/231684/).

Engblom v. Carey established key Third Amendment individual protections. The foundational Engblom v. Carey ruling established that the Third Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, extending protections to individuals from the quartering of soldiers, rather than solely property owners [[^]](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/677/957/231684/). This case originated from New York correctional officers being forced to vacate their dorm rooms to quarter National Guard members during a strike [[^]](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/677/957/231684/). While recent legal discussions have acknowledged the potential for Third Amendment issues, particularly concerning National Guard deployments during civil unrest [[^]](https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/National_Guard_Ruling.pdf), current information does not detail ongoing Circuit Court litigation presenting new, conflicting interpretations. Therefore, the conditions for a modern 'circuit split' on the Third Amendment, as would be required for significant new judicial action, are not evident in the available research.

## Do Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito Show Third Amendment Interest?

Justices' Third Amendment Writings | No direct evidence of opinions, dissents, or law review articles by Thomas, Gorsuch, or Alito clarifying the Third Amendment's scope [[^]](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-811.ZD1.html) |
Justice Thomas's Clerk | Jacob Altik, clerking for Justice Thomas (October 2024 term), no jurisprudential interest in Third Amendment noted [[^]](https://www.law.gwu.edu/gw-law-alumnus-clerk-us-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas), [[^]](https://michigan.law.umich.edu/news/jacob-altik-21-looks-sharpen-his-legal-skills-upcoming-supreme-court-clerkship) |
Academic Interest in Third Amendment | Scholarship exists (e.g., "The Third Amendment in 2020"), but not linked to justices' certiorari predisposition [[^]](https://www2.stetson.edu/law-review/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/52.1.03-Smith.TheThirdAmendmentin2020.pdf) |

**No direct evidence indicates originalist justices' jurisprudential interest in the Third Amendment**

No direct evidence indicates originalist justices' jurisprudential interest in the Third Amendment. Current Supreme Court justices, specifically originalists like Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, or Samuel Alito, have not authored opinions, dissents, or law review articles signaling a jurisprudential interest in clarifying the scope of the Third Amendment [[^]](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-811.ZD1.html). While Justice Thomas did author a dissent in Groh v. Ramirez, this case primarily concerned the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement for search warrants, not the Third Amendment [[^]](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-811.ZD1.html).

Recently appointed clerks lack documented interest in the Third Amendment's scope. Jacob Altik has been identified as clerking for Justice Clarence Thomas for the October 2024 term [[^]](https://www.law.gwu.edu/gw-law-alumnus-clerk-us-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas), [[^]](https://michigan.law.umich.edu/news/jacob-altik-21-looks-sharpen-his-legal-skills-upcoming-supreme-court-clerkship). However, available sources detailing his appointment and background do not mention any specific scholarly work or jurisprudential interest by Altik or Justice Thomas concerning the Third Amendment [[^]](https://www.law.gwu.edu/gw-law-alumnus-clerk-us-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas), [[^]](https://michigan.law.umich.edu/news/jacob-altik-21-looks-sharpen-his-legal-skills-upcoming-supreme-court-clerkship). Similarly, Jack Tucker's appointment as a Supreme Court clerk is noted, but the specific justice he will clerk for is not detailed, nor is any connection to the Third Amendment made [[^]](https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/202504/jack-tucker-22-clerk-us-supreme-court).

Academic interest in the Third Amendment does not link to justices. Although academic scholarship on the Third Amendment exists, as evidenced by a law review article titled "The Third Amendment in 2020" [[^]](https://www2.stetson.edu/law-review/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/52.1.03-Smith.TheThirdAmendmentin2020.pdf), this scholarship does not directly connect to the specific jurisprudential interests of the named Supreme Court justices or their recently appointed clerks. Therefore, the available research does not indicate a predisposition among these justices to grant certiorari on a Third Amendment case based on their past writings or those of their recent clerks.

## Does Project 2025 Propose Quartering Troops in Civilian Homes?

Proposed Federal Troop Deployment | Up to 25,000 for immigration enforcement and unrest suppression [[^]](https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/SR309_1.pdf) |
Proposed Housing for Deployed Forces | Temporary housing and facilities within deployment regions [[^]](https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-releases-blueprint-using-the-us-military-secure-the-border) |
Quartering in Private Homes | Not explicitly proposed [[^]](https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/SR309_1.pdf) |

**Project 2025 outlines expanded domestic roles for the U.S**

Project 2025 outlines expanded domestic roles for the U.S. military. The Heritage Foundation's 'Mandate for Leadership' advocates for deploying "military forces sufficient to achieve complete operational control" of the border, with reports suggesting up to 25,000 federal troops for immigration enforcement [2, p. 627, 628; 4]. Additionally, Project 2025 proposes invoking the Insurrection Act to employ armed forces against "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy" [1, p. 18; 4]. These policy papers also mention "maintaining temporary housing and facilities for those forces" within deployment regions [[^]](https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-releases-blueprint-using-the-us-military-secure-the-border).

Project 2025 does not explicitly propose private housing for military personnel. Despite the substantial increase in domestic military presence envisioned, the documents do not directly suggest housing troops in private civilian homes [[^]](https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/SR309_1.pdf). Instead, the documents emphasize organized, non-private housing solutions, specifically mentioning "temporary housing and facilities" for deployed forces [[^]](https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-releases-blueprint-using-the-us-military-secure-the-border). The Third Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes without consent in peacetime, and only "in a manner to be prescribed by law" in wartime.

Therefore, qualifying 'quartering' incidents are not direct policy objectives. While expanded domestic operations might lead to increased military-civilian interactions, the specific act of quartering soldiers in private homes without consent is not a stated policy or an explicit anticipated outcome within Project 2025 documents. Any such incident would likely result from unforeseen circumstances during large-scale deployments that overwhelm existing infrastructure, rather than being a direct policy objective. There is no information in the provided sources to suggest Project 2025 explicitly proposes actions that would intentionally lead to such an incident.

## Are Organizations Actively Seeking Third Amendment Test Cases?

ÞALA Founding | August 2021 [[^]](https://thirdamendmentlawyers.weebly.com/about.html) |
Key ÞALA Action | Filed amicus brief in Garnett v. CDC [[^]](https://abovethelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/08/3A-Amicus.pdf) |
Second Amendment Foundation | No stated search for Third Amendment test cases [[^]](https://saf.org/brown-nfa/) |

**The Third Amendment Lawyers Association actively seeks modern test cases**

The Third Amendment Lawyers Association actively seeks modern test cases. Established in August 2021, ÞALA is actively seeking strategic "test cases" to challenge contemporary interpretations and limits of the Third Amendment [[^]](https://thirdamendmentlawyers.weebly.com/about.html). This organization was founded by attorneys specifically concerned with governmental encroachment on property rights and individual liberties, viewing actions such as mandatory "sheltering in place" and eviction moratoria as potential Third Amendment violations [[^]](https://thirdamendmentlawyers.weebly.com/about.html). ÞALA explicitly states it is looking for cases to support and clients to represent to advance its mission [[^]](https://thirdamendmentlawyers.weebly.com/about.html).

ÞALA and Institute for Justice have engaged in litigation. The Third Amendment Lawyers Association has already participated in public interest litigation by partnering with the Institute for Justice (IJ) [[^]](https://thirdamendmentlawyers.weebly.com/about.html). Together, they filed an amicus curiae brief in the case of Garnett v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [[^]](https://abovethelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/08/3A-Amicus.pdf). This brief argued that the federal eviction moratorium implemented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention constituted an unconstitutional quartering of soldiers or "quasai-soldiers," thereby violating the Third Amendment [[^]](https://abovethelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/08/3A-Amicus.pdf). This collaboration underscores an active effort by both organizations to challenge modern applications of the Third Amendment [[^]](https://abovethelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/08/3A-Amicus.pdf).

The Second Amendment Foundation is not pursuing Third Amendment challenges. Despite the efforts of ÞALA and the Institute for Justice to engage with Third Amendment challenges, the available research does not indicate that the Second Amendment Foundation is publicly stating an intent or actively searching for a strategic "test case" to challenge the modern limits of the Third Amendment. The provided sources pertaining to the Second Amendment Foundation exclusively detail their involvement in Second Amendment-related lawsuits [[^]](https://saf.org/brown-nfa/).

## What is the Timeline for a Supreme Court Hearing by 2029?

District Court Processing (novel case) | 18 months [[^]](https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/jb_b4a_0930.2024.pdf) |
Circuit Court Processing (median) | 8.8 months [[^]](https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/jb_b4a_0930.2024.pdf) |
Certiorari Petition Deadline | 90 days [[^]](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_13) |

**For a pre-2029 Supreme Court hearing, incident by June 2025 is key**

For a pre-2029 Supreme Court hearing, incident by June 2025 is key. To realistically achieve a Supreme Court hearing for a novel constitutional case before January 2029, the incident would need to occur no later than June 2025. The initial filing in a federal district court would then be required by September 2025. This proposed timeline is highly accelerated and relies on an efficient and uninterrupted progression through each stage of the appellate process.

The timeline commences with a projected December 2028 Supreme Court oral argument. This backward calculation requires that certiorari must be granted by July 2028, necessitating the certiorari petition to be filed by April 2028, assuming a three-month review period [[^]](https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/04/how-the-justices-decide-which-cases-to-decide-an-explainer/). Consequently, a federal circuit court judgment would be essential by January 2028, allowing 90 days for the certiorari petition to be filed [[^]](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_13). Given that the median processing time for circuit courts is 8.8 months, the appeal would therefore need to be filed with the circuit court by April 2027 [[^]](https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/jb_b4a_0930.2024.pdf).

District court proceedings require significant time for complex constitutional matters. A federal district court would then need to issue its final judgment by March 2027. For a novel constitutional case, an estimated 18 months from the initial filing to a final judgment is considered a reasonable duration, notably longer than the 7.6 months median disposition time for all civil cases [[^]](https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/jb_b4a_0930.2024.pdf). This extended period for complex constitutional issues means the incident must be filed in district court by September 2025. Allowing for necessary pre-filing preparation, this points to the incident itself occurring no later than June 2025. Any significant delay at any stage of this process would realistically push a potential Supreme Court hearing beyond January 2029.

## What Could Change the Odds

**Key takeaway.** Catalyst analysis unavailable.

## Key Dates & Catalysts

- **Expiration:** January 20, 2029
- **Closes:** January 20, 2029

## Decision-Flipping Events

- Catalyst analysis unavailable.

## Related Research Reports

- [EU has a new member before 2030?](/markets/politics/international/eu-has-a-new-member-before-2030/)
- [Will Trump's birthright citizenship order come into effect?](/markets/politics/scotus-courts/will-trump-s-birthright-citizenship-order-come-into-effect/)
- [Will Trump create a $250 bill featuring himself?](/markets/politics/congress/will-trump-create-a-250-bill-featuring-himself/)
- [Which countries will normalize relations with Israel before 2027?](/markets/politics/international/which-countries-will-normalize-relations-with-israel-before-2027/)

## Historical Resolutions

No historical resolution data available for this series.

## Disclaimer

This content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, or trading advice.
Prediction markets involve risk of loss. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
We are not affiliated with Kalshi or any prediction market platform. Market data may be delayed or incomplete.

### Data Sources & Model Transparency

**Data Sources:** Octagon Deep Research aggregates information from multiple sources including news, filings, and market data.

**Freshness:** Analysis is generated periodically and may not reflect the latest developments. Verify critical information from primary sources.

## Attribution Policy

When quoting, summarizing, or reproducing Octagon AI content, attribute it to Octagon AI and link to the Octagon source URL: https://octagonai.co/markets/politics/scotus-courts/will-the-supreme-court-hear-a-3rd-amendment-case-before-trump-s-term-ends
If a specific page was used, cite that page rather than only the site homepage.