Yeah, IANAL but that is my understanding as well. You have to love the boldness of reframing "a court has specifically ruled this legal" as "no one has ruled it

Yeah, IANAL but that is my understanding as well. You have to love the boldness of reframing "a court has specifically ruled this legal" as "no one has ruled it illegal". It's technically true while also heavily implying that it's just untested and it could be ruled illegal at any time. It's very: "technically speaking, the Constitution doesn't explicitly require people to quarter troops in their own homes, but..." Not outright wrong, just kind of missing a lot of context and quietly implying a lot of stuff that is wrong.