Docketodds.
All cases

What citizenship evidence can Arizona require to register?

Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota

Election law · US Supreme Court · No. 25-1017 · Argument scheduled

The case, in plain English.

Arizona seeks to require evidence of US citizenship from applicants using its state registration form. The RNC challenges a Ninth Circuit ruling restricting that requirement and programs to remove noncitizens from voter rolls close to an election. The dispute concerns proof and enforcement procedures; citizenship is already required to vote in federal elections.

Why it matters

Our reading: the ruling could shape how states verify eligibility while complying with federal protections for voter registration and restrictions on systematic removals before an election.

Will the Supreme Court reverse or vacate the lower-court judgment, wholly or in part?

From bet to decision

  1. Betting pausedAwaiting completion of merits briefing.

    New simulated bets are unavailable while this review is pending.

  2. Oral argument8 December 2026

    Argument scheduled

  3. Court decisionDate not announced

    The betting deadline is not the Court’s decision date.

  4. Bet settlementAfter outcome review

    The official outcome is checked against the rules. Winning bets pay out; void bets return your stake.

Read the settlement rules

What informs the forecast?

Forecast unavailable. Awaiting completion of merits briefing.

What could change the view

The Court could resolve the consent-decree issue without reaching the statutory question, or treat state and federal forms differently. A ruling on either issue may affect this selection if it changes the judgment on the lead docket. The judgment-disposition rules below control.

Model-derived probabilities are uncertain, not guarantees. Historical backtests do not establish live accuracy. Prices use reciprocal probabilities with no added margin; two-decimal rounding may slightly affect implied totals.

Outcome & resolution rules

YES (petitioner win) means the Supreme Court reverses or vacates the lower-court judgment, wholly or in part, including a grant-vacate-remand or mootness vacatur. NO means affirmance (including an equally divided Court), dismissal as improvidently granted, or other writ dismissal leaving the judgment standing. Settlement or dismissal by agreement, removal from the calendar or vacatur of certiorari is VOID and returns the stake. Modified or unclassified judgments require manual review. This predicts judgment disposition, not whether a particular legal argument succeeds. Resolution follows forecast rules version 2.

The first issued Supreme Court judgment on the lead docket controls; later rehearing changes are ignored. The slip-opinion judgment and official docket are checked independently. Conflicts, modified judgments and unmatched dispositions require manual review, not an assumed result. The selection deadline closes new positions; it is not a deadline for a Court judgment.

Deadline: 8 Dec 2026, 11:00 AEDT (Sydney). Market rule revision 1. Accepted bets retain this version. Only a reviewed official outcome can settle this market.

Forecast rules version 2 defines the model’s outcome categories. The market rule revision above tracks changes to this market’s accepted rules; these are separate version numbers.