It's not interpreting any law. > A policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest w

It's not interpreting any law. > A policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he has probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does. Although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, the same consideration would seem to require excusing him from liability for acting under a statute that he reasonably believed to be valid but that was later held unconstitutional, on its face or as applied. - https://www.leagle.com/decision/1967933386us5471842 https://www.leagle.com/decision/1967933386us5471842 There is no law cited, it was just the justices' gut feeling. Courts since then have gradually expanded "reasonably believed to be valid" to mean there must be "precisely factually on-point caselaw" determining the actions are unconstitutional. Edit: I encourage you to read more about the Supreme Court, it seems like you're not familiar with a lot of its history or why it exists. > The court can only interpret law, they can't reverse a law just because a majority of people don't like it. It absolutely can reverse a law. Striking down unconstitutional laws is one of the main reasons it exists. > If the law hasn't changed since the last time they heard the case, there's no point in them hearing any more cases because there is nothing new to discuss from a legal standpoint. That is a frequent excuse, but consider two unanimous decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama: a unanimous decision ruling that a law against interracial marriage is constitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia: a unanimous decision ruling that a law against interracial marriage is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment did not change in between these two cases, and the facts of the cases were effectively the same.