I haven't seen any sign that they think the statute was unconstitutional. It sounds more like they think the statute intended to have a narrower scope than a li

I haven't seen any sign that they think the statute was unconstitutional. It sounds more like they think the statute intended to have a narrower scope than a literal reading of the word "waiver" would imply. (Perhaps in their eyes it meant "on an individual basis", or something that doesn't apply to the majority of the subjects, etc.)