Scan: Will the next President confirm 2 Supreme Court justices?

← Back to scans

Will the next President confirm 2 Supreme Court justices?

KXNEWSCOTUSCONF-29JAN20-2 · Politics · 2026-04-13

34%

Agent

31%

Market Price

+3.0%

Edge

45%

Confidence

Volume: 53,189

Spread: 1.0c

Days to resolution: 1013

Markets in event: 10

Final Rationale

My initial independent estimate of 49% contained a double-counting error on the base rate and overestimated the probability of two vacancies at 50%. After correcting: P(Thomas retires in remaining 33 months) ≈ 0.55, P(second vacancy conditional on first) ≈ 0.45, P(both confirmed) ≈ 0.93 gives ~0.23 via the primary pathway, plus alternative paths (health events, non-Thomas first vacancy) adding ~0.10, totaling ~0.34. The Devil's Advocate correctly identified the base rate double-counting and the overweighting of the unconditional 78.6% historical rate when we're already 15 months in with zero confirmations. My corrected estimate at 34% is close to the market's 31%, with the small remaining divergence reflecting my slightly higher weight on strategic retirement incentives for Thomas and Alito under a sympathetic president with Senate control.

Price vs. prediction

How the market moved after the agent's call. Solid blue line is the actual market price; dashed line is the agent's static forecast at $t{=}0$.

$n = 57$ follow-ups

1. Planner Opus · Fermi decomposition + tool plan

Tools chosen: kalshi_data kalshi_orderbook article_search web_search wikipedia_lookup code_execution

Sub-questions (Fermi decomposition)

Has Trump already confirmed at least 1 Supreme Court justice during the 2025-2029 term as of April 2026? (w=0.20)
Will at least one additional Supreme Court vacancy occur during the remainder of the 2025-2029 term (after April 2026)? (w=0.35)
Will a second Supreme Court vacancy arise through death, retirement, or resignation during the full 2025-2029 term given the current ages and health of sitting justices? (w=0.25)
Will the Senate successfully confirm Trump Supreme Court nominees for any vacancies that arise during the 2025-2029 term? (w=0.20)

Planner reasoning

This question asks whether 2 or more Supreme Court justices will be confirmed during Trump's 2025-2029 term. The key analytical approach: First, determine current status as of April 2026 - has 1 justice already been confirmed (there were reports of potential retirements from Thomas, Alito, or Sotomayor in 2025). Second, assess the probability of additional vacancies given the ages of sitting justices: Thomas (77), Alito (76), Sotomayor (71), and Roberts (71) are all 70+ and represent potential vacancies. Third, apply historical base rates - roughly 85% of post-WWII presidential terms have seen 2+ confirmations, with Carter the only zero. The reference class strongly favors 2+. Key causal mechanisms: (1) older conservative justices may time retirement to align with Republican administration, (2) health events are unpredictable but more likely at older ages, (3) Republican Senate would confirm nominees quickly. Temporal analysis: With 33 months remaining from April 2026, if 1 is already confirmed, one more vacancy must occur AND be confirmed before Jan 20, 2029. Given 4 justices over age 70 and strategic retirement incentives for conservatives under a Republican president, this window is ample. The main risk is no vacancy occurring in the remaining term. Differentiating factor from Trump's first term: he enters with 3 prior appointees already on the Court, so the older liberal and conservative justices are the swing factors.

2. Research Parallel tool calls · legacy v2

Tool	Status	Time	Items
kalshi_data	OK	2.4s	-
kalshi_orderbook	OK	0.3s	-
article_search	OK	0.2s	-
web_search	OK	71.5s	-
wikipedia_lookup	OK	2.7s	-
code_execution	OK	0.0s	-

3. Evidence Synthesis Sonnet · 14 items · legacy v2

#	Strength	Credibility	Direction	Source	Claim	Priced In
1	STRONG	88	↓ DOWN	web_search	As of April 2026, Trump has made zero Supreme Court confirmations in his second term (2025-2029); all three of his SCOTUS confirmations (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett) occurred during his first term.	Yes
2	MODERATE	78	↓ DOWN	web_search	Trump ended 2025 with only 26 lifetime judicial confirmations (zero SCOTUS), and observers note judicial appointments are a lower priority in his second term due to fewer available seats.	Yes
3	MODERATE	62	↓ DOWN	kalshi_data	The Kalshi market for 2 SCOTUS confirmations during Trump's 2025-2029 term is priced at 31%, down 3% in 7 days and 5% in 30 days, indicating market participants see the overall 2-confirmation outcome as unlikely.	Yes
4	MODERATE	65	↑ UP	kalshi_data	Kalshi market prices Clarence Thomas resigning during Trump's term at 57%, up 13% in 7 days and 6% in 30 days — a significant and rapidly rising probability signal for at least one vacancy.	No
5	MODERATE	75	NEUTRAL	web_search	Alito (76) and Thomas (77) have given no public indication of plans to retire as of April 2026, though both represent strategic retirement candidates under a Republican administration.	Yes
6	MODERATE	55	↑ UP	code_execution	Statistical modeling estimates a ~55% probability of at least one vacancy from justices aged 70+ (Thomas 77, Alito 76, Sotomayor 71, Roberts 71) during the remaining term.	No
7	WEAK	50	NEUTRAL	kalshi_data	Kalshi market for 'Not nine justices at end of Trump's term' is priced at only 11%, suggesting markets do not strongly expect a court-expansion or unfilled vacancy scenario, which implies vacancies that do open are likely to be filled.	Yes
8	STRONG	90	↑ UP	web_search	Four justices are currently over age 70: Thomas (77), Alito (76), Sotomayor (71), and Roberts (71), creating elevated baseline mortality and retirement risk across the full 2025-2029 term.	Yes
9	MODERATE	63	↑ UP	kalshi_data	Clarence Thomas resignation market has surged to 57% (+13% in 7 days), which if accurate would represent the most likely near-term vacancy and the first confirmation of Trump's second term.	No
10	MODERATE	60	↑ UP	code_execution	Historical base rate analysis finds 11 of 14 post-WWII presidential terms (78.6%) saw 2+ SCOTUS confirmations, and 13 of 14 (92.9%) saw at least 1 — suggesting the historical prior strongly favors multiple confirmations.	Yes
11	STRONG	85	↑ UP	web_search	Republicans control the Senate in Trump's second term and eliminated the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees during his first term, meaning confirmation of any Trump SCOTUS nominee faces minimal procedural obstacles.	Yes
12	WEAK	45	↓ DOWN	web_search	Analysts raise concern that Trump may apply a 'loyalty test' to SCOTUS nominees, potentially complicating nominations if preferred candidates face Senate resistance or qualification questions.	No
13	WEAK	50	NEUTRAL	kalshi_data	Amul Thapar, a leading SCOTUS candidate, is priced at only 11% to be the next justice, suggesting no single frontrunner has emerged and the nomination process remains uncertain.	Yes
14	MODERATE	65	↓ DOWN	kalshi_orderbook	The orderbook for the 2-confirmation market shows zero yes bids and high depth on the no side (25,318 contracts), indicating strong market conviction that 2 confirmations will NOT occur.	Yes

Information Gaps

No direct evidence on whether Thomas or Alito have privately communicated retirement intentions to the White House or allies
No information on health status of Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, or Roberts that would inform mortality/disability risk
No data on whether the Thomas resignation market spike (+13% in 7 days) is driven by a specific news event or rumor
No clarity on whether the Kalshi 2-confirmation market resolves based on nominations in 2025-2029 specifically or includes first-term justices
No information on Senate composition changes that could affect confirmation dynamics (e.g., potential mid-term shifts in 2026)
Absence of any reporting on Trump's current SCOTUS shortlist for his second term
No data on Sotomayor's health status, which was a subject of speculation in 2024

Key Uncertainties

Whether the Thomas resignation market surge reflects genuine insider information or just speculative momentum
Whether Thomas and/or Alito will strategically retire under Trump to lock in a conservative replacement — the key swing factor
Whether Trump's 'loyalty test' for nominees creates friction that delays or derails a confirmation even with a vacancy
Whether Senate Republicans maintain unified caucus control through 2028 to ensure confirmation votes
Health events (death or disability) remain unpredictable for justices in their 70s; a health crisis could accelerate vacancy timing
Whether the question requires BOTH confirmations to occur in the 2025-2029 term or counts first-term appointees — research confirms the former, meaning zero have occurred yet
The probability that 2 vacancies occur within the remaining ~33 months (April 2026 to January 2029) given current pace of zero

Market Context

Price: 0.31 · 7d: -0.03 · 30d: -0.05
Volume: LOW — 73 contracts/day average is thin · Depth: HIGH on no side (25,318 contracts depth), zero yes bids — asymmetric orderbook strongly weighted toward NO
Reliability: LOW-MEDIUM — Low daily volume limits price discovery quality; the asymmetric orderbook with zero yes bids is a strong directional signal but may reflect illiquidity rather than true consensus

4. Independent Forecaster Opus · No market price · legacy v2 Did NOT see market price

Independent estimate: 49% (45% confidence)

base rate

50%

45% conf

evidence driven

45%

45% conf

contrarian

52%

45% conf

Spread

7pp

Low disagreement

sq1: Has Trump already confirmed at least 1 Supreme Court justice during the 2025-2029 term as of April 2026?

Strong evidence from multiple sources confirms zero SCOTUS confirmations in Trump's second term as of April 2026. All three of his prior confirmations were in the first term. The evidence is very recent and consistent. The only reason I don't put this at 0.01 is a small possibility that I'm missing very recent news, but the evidence is clear. Setting at 5% to account for minor uncertainty.

sq2: Will at least one additional Supreme Court vacancy occur during the remainder of the 2025-2029 term (after April 2026)?

75%

Base rate: 13/14 post-WWII terms had at least 1 confirmation (~93%), and we have ~33 months remaining. Four justices are 70+: Thomas (77), Alito (76), Sotomayor (71), Roberts (71). Statistical modeling suggests ~55% probability from mortality/disability alone, but strategic retirement pushes this higher significantly. Thomas and Alito have strong incentives to retire under a Republican president with a Republican Senate - this is their best window. Historical pattern shows conservative justices do time retirements strategically (e.g., Kennedy in 2018). The fact that neither has retired yet (15 months into the term) pushes down slightly, but 33 months is substantial. I estimate ~75% for at least one vacancy in the remaining term.

sq3: Will a second Supreme Court vacancy arise through death, retirement, or resignation during the full 2025-2029 term?

50%

Base rate: 11/14 post-WWII terms saw 2+ confirmations (78.6%). However, we need to condition on the fact that zero have occurred in the first 15 months, which is somewhat unusual and lowers the probability. With 33 months remaining, we need TWO vacancies to occur and be filled. Having four justices 70+ helps, but getting two vacancies (not just one) is meaningfully harder. If Thomas and Alito both retire strategically, this is easy - but there's no evidence they've signaled this. If only one retires, we'd need a health event or another retirement. I estimate ~50% for getting 2 total vacancies during the full term.

sq4: Will the Senate successfully confirm Trump Supreme Court nominees for any vacancies that arise?

93%

Base rate for same-party president-Senate confirmations is very high (~95%+). Republicans control the Senate, filibuster for SCOTUS is eliminated, and Trump has demonstrated ability to get nominees through (3 in first term). The loyalty test concern is weak evidence pushing down slightly. Even if 2026 midterms shift things, Senate terms are 6 years so current composition likely holds. The main risk is an extreme nominee creating intra-party opposition (like Harriet Miers in 2005), but Trump learned from that era. Setting at 93%.

Show full reasoning trace

base rate: 11/14 post-WWII presidential terms (78.6%) saw 2+ SCOTUS confirmations. Only Carter had zero. This is a strong prior favoring YES. However, we're 15 months into the term with zero confirmations, which is an important update.

evidence updates: Key downward update: Zero confirmations in 15 months (-15% from base). No public retirement signals from Thomas or Alito (-5%). Key upward factors: Four justices 70+ with strategic retirement incentives (+5%). Republican Senate with eliminated filibuster (+3%). 33 months remaining is substantial time (+5%). Net from 78.6% base: approximately 50%.

combination method: Direct conditional probability: P(2+ vacancies in remaining 33 months) × P(confirmations succeed) ≈ 0.50 × 0.87 ≈ 0.435, rounded up to 0.50 given the strong historical base rate and strategic retirement incentives.

final: The historical base rate strongly favors 2+ confirmations (78.6%), but zero confirmations in 15 months is a meaningful negative signal. The path to YES most likely runs through strategic retirements by Thomas and/or Alito, possibly combined with a health event for another 70+ justice. With 33 months remaining and strong confirmation infrastructure (Republican Senate, no filibuster), the binding constraint is whether 2 vacancies actually arise. I estimate approximately 50% probability.

ensemble: {'ensemble_count': 3, 'perspectives': {'base_rate': {'p_yes': 0.5, 'confidence': 0.45}, 'evidence_driven': {'p_yes': 0.45, 'confidence': 0.45}, 'contrarian': {'p_yes': 0.52, 'confidence': 0.45}}, 'spread': 0.07, 'individual_p_yes': {'base_rate': 0.5, 'evidence_driven': 0.45, 'contrarian': 0.52}}

5. Devil's Advocate Sonnet · legacy v2 Market price revealed

Math Error Reasoning Flaw Asymmetric Evidence

Challenges

The forecaster's sq1 estimate of 5% seems reasonable, but then the combination method is inconsistent. If P(already confirmed 1) = 0.05, the question effectively becomes: what's the probability of confirming 2 justices in the remaining ~33 months? The forecaster's math jumps between different framings without a clean decomposition.
The combination math is explicitly acknowledged as approximate but contains an error: the forecaster calculates P(2+ vacancies) × P(confirmations) ≈ 0.50 × 0.87 ≈ 0.435, then 'rounds up to 0.50 given the strong historical base rate.' This is not rounding — it's a 15% upward adjustment justified vaguely by base rate, which was already supposedly incorporated into the 0.50 estimate for vacancies. This is double-counting the base rate.
The historical base rate of 78.6% (11/14 terms with 2+ confirmations) is being used too aggressively as an anchor. The base rate includes terms where confirmations happened early. We're already 15 months in with zero confirmations, so the relevant conditional base rate — P(2+ confirmations | 0 confirmations in first 15 months) — would be substantially lower. The forecaster acknowledges this but doesn't quantify it rigorously enough.
The forecaster notes the Thomas resignation market at 57% but doesn't adequately factor in that even if Thomas resigns, getting a SECOND vacancy requires an additional independent event. If P(Thomas retires) ≈ 0.57 and P(Alito retires | Thomas retires) ≈ 0.4-0.5, and P(other vacancy) ≈ 0.2, the probability of two vacancies is roughly 0.57 × 0.45 + combinations with health events ≈ 0.35-0.40, not 0.50.
The 'Not nine justices at end of Trump's term' Kalshi market at only 11% is strong evidence AGAINST vacancies occurring, yet the forecaster labels it merely [WEAK][NEUTRAL]. If markets believe there's only an 11% chance we won't have nine justices at term's end, that severely constrains the probability of any vacancy at all — let alone two. This evidence is being underweighted.
There's a logical tension in the evidence: the Thomas resignation market at 57% seems inconsistent with the 'not nine justices' market at 11%. If Thomas has a 57% chance of resigning, we'd expect a much higher probability of not having nine justices. This inconsistency suggests at least one of these market signals is unreliable, and the forecaster doesn't address this contradiction.
The forecaster's sq3 estimate of 50% for two vacancies during the full term seems too high given the constraint that zero have occurred in 15 months. With 33 months remaining, needing TWO vacancies (and confirmations) is a significant ask. The forecaster should more carefully model this as needing essentially two independent low-to-moderate probability events to both occur.

Suggested adjustment: -10pp

The forecaster double-counts the base rate (uses it to set sq3 at 50%, then rounds up the final calculation from 0.435 to 0.50 citing the base rate again). The 'not nine justices' market at 11% is underweighted as evidence against vacancies. The conditional probability of 2+ confirmations given zero in the first 15 months should be lower than the unconditional base rate by more than the forecaster acknowledges. A more rigorous calculation: P(Thomas retires) × P(second vacancy) × P(both confirmed) ≈ 0.57 × 0.45 × 0.93 ≈ 0.24, plus paths through health events ≈ 0.05-0.10, giving roughly 0.30-0.40. Adjusting down by 0.10 to approximately 0.39.

Market comparison: Forecaster: 49%, Market: 31%. The 18-point divergence is partially justified by the forecaster's consideration of strategic retirement incentives and the Thomas market signal, but the divergence is primarily driven by the double-counting of base rates and underweighting of the 'not nine justices' market signal at 11%. The market's low volume and asymmetric orderbook reduce its reliability, but the directional signal aligns with the reasoning corrections identified above. A forecast around 0.39 would be more defensible given the reasoning flaws identified.

6. Aggregator Opus · final calibrated forecast

34% (45% confidence)