I'm already on the record about what a joke this case is. However, for the sake of entertaining this post, the answer is no. For a multitude of reasons.

1. SCOTUS doesn't rule on a case during conference; they decide whether they will hear it. Then it is set for oral arguments a few months into the future if they will hear it.

2. Even if they would magically rule on it at conference, none of what everyone has said is the issue on appeal. This case isn't about treason, aid and comfort to the enemy, or any of that crap. It is 6 claims for relief: (a) promissory estoppel; (b) promissory estoppel; (c) breach of duty; (d) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (e) fraud; (f) civil conspiracy. The trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, kicked this case out before being heard for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IF they were to rule in his favor, all that would happen is "yes, there is subject matter jurisdiction, this case is remanded back to the district court for proceedings in accordance with this opinion." And it starts over back in district court.