Who will be the next Supreme Court justice?
Independent assessment: Andrew Oldham is extremely unlikely to be the next Supreme Court justice; I assign a 2% chance based on his lack of appellate pedigree, public consideration, and historical nomination patterns.
Analysis
Stage 1 — Blind analysis (ignore market prices):
Andrew Oldham, on the facts provided, does not meet the typical profile of recent Supreme Court nominees. Nominees in the modern era are overwhelmingly drawn from the federal Courts of Appeals or are nationally prominent jurists/academics with clear public records of judicial philosophy and high-profile decisions. The briefing you provided states there is *no public record* of Oldham being considered, and that he lacks the standard high-profile appellate or academic background. Those are material negatives: without appellate tenure, a published body of constitutional jurisprudence, or public circulation as a potential nominee, his baseline plausibility is near zero. Other considerations reinforce that view: presidents (of either party) and their teams typically cultivate a shortlist of appellate judges years before a vacancy, and major media/insider lists quickly surface once a vacancy is anticipated—none of which, per your summary, has happened for Oldham.
By contrast, the more plausible candidates in the provided list are those with clear appellate credentials (e.g., James Ho, Amul Thapar) or high political salience (Aileen Cannon). Those factors — a demonstrable record of appellate opinions, Senate confirmation track records, age and ideological alignment, and the president’s political calculus about confirmation probability — dominate the selection process. Given those objective criteria, I place Oldham at 2%.
Stage 2 — Market calibration (compare to current market prices):
The market currently prices Oldham at 19%, substantially above my 2% independent probability. Several explanations can account for that gap:
- *Name confusion / information errors*: Traders may be confusing Andrew Oldham with another jurist of similar name or misremembering his resume (e.g., believing he has appellate experience or that he has been discussed publicly). Automated strategies can lock in on names without verifying biographical details. - *Speculation and crowd heuristics*: Prediction markets often over-weight recognizable names or personalities; if Oldham had a recent news item unrelated to nomination chatter, that can attract speculative volume. The market can also reflect partisan or wishful betting rather than hard-probability assessment. - *Market liquidity and concentration*: With substantial volume (340k contracts) and multiple thinly differentiated conservative names, bettors may be distributing risk across many conservative options. That can inflate individual probabilities relative to fundamentals. - *Hedging and correlated bets*: Some participants may be using the Oldham contract to hedge positions or express a broader view on a conservative pick without wanting to pick Thapar or Ho directly.
Given the discrepancy, the market appears mispriced in favor of Oldham. If you trust the factual baseline (no appellate tenure, no public shortlist appearance), selling Yes at 19% is a defensible trade. However, the market could converge if new information emerges (e.g., sudden White House signals, leaked shortlist). I assign higher probabilities to candidates with appellate records (Amul Thapar, James Ho) and to a high-profile district judge who has political salience (Aileen Cannon), and lower probabilities to non-judicial attorneys (D. John Sauer) relative to appellate judges.
Bottom-line: Independent probability for Oldham = 2%. The market at 19% looks substantially above that; likely causes include misinfo, name-recognition speculation, and portfolio hedging among bettors.
Arguments
For
- Arguments for Yes: Oldham has a legal background that could be spun as credentially sufficient by a partisan selector if political priorities outweigh standard pedigree.
- Arguments for Yes: In highly partisan or strategic scenarios, a president might pick a lower-profile, reliably ideological nominee to minimize pre-confirmation controversy or for loyalty reasons.
- Arguments for Yes: Markets can move on rumor; even scant private signaling could rapidly boost plausibility well above public baseline.
Against
- Arguments against Yes: Oldham lacks the typical federal appellate court tenure and a public record of widely-cited opinions—key predictors of modern nominees.
- Arguments against Yes: There is no evidence of his name being circulated by the White House, Senate leadership, or major media outlets, which historically precedes nomination.
- Arguments against Yes: Presidents typically select nominees with demonstrated confirmation prospects and public credibility; Oldham’s low profile undermines both criteria.
Key drivers
- Appellate experience and published judicial record (most important)
- Public circulation on White House/insider shortlists and media recognition
- Senate confirmation probability given the Senate's partisan makeup
- President's political calculus (age, ideology, symbolic considerations)
- Name recognition and recent media salience that can drive market bets
Risk factors
- Rapidly changing political signals or leaks from the White House that introduce Oldham to the shortlist
- Mistaken market consensus driven by name confusion or automated trading
- Unexpected vacancy timing that shifts prioritization (e.g., president chooses a lightning-rod nominee for strategic reasons)
- Opaque private vetting processes that may elevate a little-known candidate
Scenarios
Best case
For the Yes outcome: A late, credible leak or a strategic White House decision names Oldham as a compromise pick (e.g., to appease a faction or as a surprise loyalty promotion). The nomination is pushed through in an expedited, highly partisan confirmation fight with enough Senate support.
Most likely
A more probable path is that a president nominates an appellate judge with a substantial record and proven confirmation viability. Among the listed contenders, this makes Amul Thapar or James Ho the likeliest recipients of a nomination; Oldham’s name will not appear on serious shortlists and will remain an improbable dark-horse.
Worst case
For the No outcome (most plausible): Oldham is never seriously considered; the president nominates a sitting federal appellate judge with a robust record (e.g., Amul Thapar or James Ho), who becomes the next Justice. Oldham remains a footnote and the market reverses as bettors adjust.
Outcomes
| Outcome | AI | MKT |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Oldham | 2% | 19% |
| James Ho | 36% | 16% |
| D. John Sauer | 7% | 16% |
| Aileen Cannon | 10% | 9% |
| Amul Thapar | 45% | 9% |
More from this day
- PoliticsKalshi1y
2026: Trump's bad year?
AI62%MKT14%Edge+48Hidden GemI assess a better-than-even chance that the "bear case" for Donald Trump will materialize in 2026: legal, regulatory, and institutional pressures make a materially bad year more likely than markets currently price.
- PoliticsKalshi2y
Who will Trump pardon?
AI8%MKT46%Edge-38HypedIndependent assessment: very unlikely — I estimate an 8% chance Barron Trump receives a presidential pardon before Jan 21, 2029, because there is no present legal basis and the political cost of pardoning a child is extremely high, though not impossible if circumstances change.
- PoliticsKalshi2y
Who will be Trump's next Secretary of Labor?
AI96%MKT60%Edge+36Hidden GemKeith Sonderling is overwhelmingly likely to be the correct answer — he assumed the office on April 20, 2026 and is effectively the Department of Labor Secretary; I assign ~96% probability that he is Trump's next Secretary of Labor as defined by this market.