Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of Daniel Grand in Grand v. City of University Heights

If the Supreme Court, in Grand v. City of University Heights, rules the land-use finality requirement does not displace a First Amendment chilling-effect claim based on credible government threats that deter religious exercise, worship, or assembly, then the market resolves to Yes. The Payout Criterion for the Contract encompasses the Expiration Values that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that Williamson County’s land-use finality requirement does not displace the First Amendment’s chilling-effect doctrine when a plaintiff alleges that credible government threats before and after a Planning Commission meeting chilled religious exercise, worship, or assembly, such that the claim is not barred solely because the plaintiff lacked a final land-use decision, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028. The market resolves to No if the Court holds that the finality requirement displaces or bars such a claim, or if the case is dismissed, dismissed as improvidently granted, or remanded without resolving that merits question.