The article itself is just repeating the dissenting opinion from the Supreme Court. It's not fearmongering to present a hypothetical legal situation that might

The article itself is just repeating the dissenting opinion from the Supreme Court. It's not fearmongering to present a hypothetical legal situation that might resolve with undesirable outcomes. Now, you could argue that the dissent was fearmongering but technically that's what you're supposed to do when you identify a glaring problem in a ruling. Otherwise you won't convince people the mistake is worth fixing.