That said, the language in that unreported ruling is pretty damn sweeping: the G&S scheme is straight up unconstitutional. Not, "unconstitutional in the way this particular appellant was handled," but "cuz the SCOTUS said this sorta thing is entirely unconstitutional for everybody." That really isn't the sort of language that suggests a focus on one narrow case or circumstance. It would make perfect sense to see if the appellant and his lawyer would be willing to petition the court to publish that ruling. Just rip that bandage off already!Not exactly. It’s a formal opinion and perfectly official and binding… in that case. It can’t be cited as precedent because the court either intended to rule very narrowly or isn’t ready to make a policy (legal interpretation, etc.) decision on a subject yet.