Why did the US Supreme Court hear this case? An op-ed entitled A Major Church-State Ruling That Shouldn't Have Happened claims that In Trinity v. Comer, there was no remaining dispute between the actual parties As I understand it, courts have no power to seek out cases or issues to rule on. A party with standing must bring the case to the court. (I've usually heard this in response to rhetoric about "activist judges.") So either my understanding has been wrong, or there's more to the story of Trinity v. Comer. If there was no remaining dispute, why did SCOTUS hear this case?
The explanation in the decision (fn 1) is that That announcement does not moot this case. We have said that such voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not moot a case unless “subsequent events ma[ke] it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” [citations] The Department has not carried the “heavy burden” of making “absolutely clear” that it could not revert to its policy of excluding religious organizations... “there is no clearly effective barrier that would prevent the [Department] from reinstating [its] policy in the future”
The relevant statute, 28 USC 455 simply states what shall be, and does not suggest that the law could be enforced by any particular means. There have been cases where there was a suggestion of a hint of impropriety at SCOTUS and yet things proceeded. In Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 Rehnquist did not recuse himself despite being a White House lawyer and having expressed an opinion on the legality of certain arrests, and that was the end of that matter.
Let's look at the Ur-example of a free-speech law, and the most wide-ranging, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It says (my emphasis): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This limitation applies only to the government. Indeed, it has been argued that this limitation only applies to the legislative branch of government and not to the executive (except when exercising legislatively delegated power) or judicial branches. Certainly, the courts have held that it is within their power to issue "gag" restraining orders. Notwithstanding, it imposes no restrictions on how non-government actors can limit your free speech. The owner of a shopping centre can require you not to evangelise, the owner of a stadium can require you not to use offensive language and the owner of a social media platform can restrict your speech in any way they wish. You have a right to talk - they have a right not to give you a platform.
The court receives petitions for something like 8,000 cases annually, but it only hears something like 75 to 100 cases. There is not enough time or manpower to address each case that comes up, so the vast majority of the cases are simply rejected without comment. There are some notable exceptions, but a review of the order list from the day before Trump's order might give you a better feel for the caseload the court is dealing with and how unremarkable it is for an order to be brief, unsigned, and with no noted dissents. The only significance of the Court disposing of Trump's case this way is that it indicates none of the justices considered the issues he was raising to be serious enough to merit their attention.
When Marks is relevant The Marks rule is direction from the Supreme Court to lower court judges as to how to deduce the controlling position when the Court itself can't come to a majority position. When a majority of justices agree in the outcome of a case, but not on the law that gets them there, the Marks rule comes into play to determine what reasoning should be followed by lower courts. An example I'll explain with an example that was at the center of the appeal in Hughes v. United States (2018). The issue arose in Hughes because lower courts did not know how to deal with the 4-1-4 split in Freeman (2013). The Marks rule says to look at the positions of the members that concurred in the outcome. In Freeman, there were two positions that together accounted for the outcome: that of four justices (written by Justice Kennedy) and that of Justice Sotomayor, in a solo concurrence. Her position was arguably decided on a &quot;narrower&quot; ground. However, neither the Kennedy plurality nor the Sotomayor concurrence was a logical subset of the other. Justice Sotomayor was not merely agreeing with some but not all of the plurality's reasoning. She came to the same conclusion, but based on a different understanding of the law. Yet some circuits were treating Justice Sotomayor's concurrence in Freeman (with which no other justice had agreed) as the controlling opinion. This is apparently what Marks required. Marks has always been confusing The Marks rule has been a source of confusion in the jurisprudence and academia ever since it was announced. It was not reasoned nor explained by the Court when it was announced. It hasn't been reasoned or explained by the Court since. To the extent that the Marks rule has arguably clear application, it is in cases where the various reasons for judgment of the Court form a &quot;logical subset&quot; or &quot;common denominator&quot; structure. But many times, the reasons don't relate to each other that way (e.g. Freeman). There is sometimes no identifiable &quot;narrowest ground&quot; in that sense, and even where there is, it reflects a minority position of the court: one that none of the other justices agreed with. The Re brief in Hughes Professor Richard M. Re filed an amicus brief in Hughes v. United States (2018) on the topic of the Marks rule arguing that the Marks rule should be abandoned and replaced with the following: A precedent of this Court should form only when most Justices expressly agree on a rule of decision. Re notes that the Marks rule &quot;applies precisely when this Court issues a decision that lacks any majority agreement on a rationale.&quot; He argues that &quot;there is no persuasive reason to treat views that lack majority support as binding, nationwide precedents.&quot; The Court itself has said the Marks rule is &quot;easier stated than applied.&quot; And the Court has never attempted to explain the rule since. Re cites his own paper, &quot;Beyond the Marks Rule&quot; which he says further shows the rule has &quot;defined consistent application by lower courts.&quot; At page 16 of the brief, he describes circuit splits that have developed over an attempt to apply the Marks rule to the reasons of the Court. Hughes gave us no answer Both parties in Hughes presented alternatives to the Marks rule. It was discussed extensively at oral argument. Counsel for the petitioner acknowledged that, &quot;Whatever guidance Marks may have provided, it's probably caused more confusion than -- than guidance.&quot; The arguments contained analogies to Venn diagrams and Russian nesting dolls. Ultimately, the Court in Hughes found it unnecessary to resolve the &quot;proper application of Marks.&quot; Despite granting certiori to address those questions, they were able to resolve the case by skipping directly to the the merits of the substantive question about sentencing. Ramos did not clarify things In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___ (2020) some members of the Court commented on what Marks might mean. Ironically, the Court in Ramos itself was split without a majority on the meaning of Marks. Justice Gorsuch, writing for three on this issue, said that Marks in fact does not ever result in a single justice's opinion becoming the controlling position. He presented this example: Suppose we face a question of first impression under the Fourth Amendment: whether a State must obtain a warrant before reading a citizen's email in the hands of an Internet provider and using that email as evidence in a criminal trial. Imagine this question splits the Court, with four Justices finding the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant and four Justices finding no such requirement. The ninth Justice agrees that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant, but takes an idiosyncratic view of the consequences of violating that right. In her view, the exclusionary rule has gone too far, and should only apply when the defendant is prosecuted for a felony. Because the case before her happens to involve only a misdemeanor, she provides the ninth vote to affirm a conviction based on evidence secured by a warrantless search. This is a 4-1-4 split, in which the solo Justice holds the arguably narrowest grounds of decision, one which would be overruling precedent in this hypothetical. Justice Gorsuch says though that Marks &quot;never sought to offer or defend&quot; a rule that &quot;a single Justice's opinion can overrule prior precedents.&quot; Justice Kavanaugh, writing in concurrence, but not agreeing with Justice Gorsuch on his Marks point, said that the Marks rule is &quot;ordinarily commonsensical to apply and usually means that courts in essence heed the opinion that occupies the middle-ground position between (i) the broadest opinion among the Justices in the majority and (ii) the dissenting opinion.&quot; He noted that the members of the Court in Ramos had notably differing opinions about how to apply Marks to Apodaca: &quot;six Justices treat the result in Apodaca as precedent for purposes of stare decisis analysis. A different group of six Justices concludes that Apodaca should be and is overruled.&quot; The dissent in Ramos, written by Justice Alito, was of the view the Marks applied to the ruling in Apodaca and that it produced precedential value that the Justice Gorsuch majority was ignoring. The dissent said that Marks clearly stands for the proposition that &quot;the position taken by a single Justice in the majority can constitute the binding rule for which the decision stands.&quot; Further reading If you're really interested in this, I suggest reading Richard Re's brief and his article, read the parties' briefs in Hughes (petitioner's, respondent's, petitioner's reply), and listen to the oral argument.
Constitution of the USA, Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. and the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, clause 3): [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; SCOTUS has found the former to mean that states that do not allow same-sex marriages in their laws must recognize same-sex marriages registered by other states - Obergefell v. Hodges. Maybe one could argue that driver licenses are not equivalent among states, but I would expect judges (SCOTUS) to require a very well reasoned explanation. For example, maybe Alaska could refuse to recognize licenses from Florida because Florida drivers do not know how to cope with snowed roads. But even in that case Alaska probably would need to produce data showing that these measures aim to serve the public interest (avoid accidents) and that there are no other ways of getting the same result. OTOH the Commerce Clause has been successfully used to avoid states mandating racial segregation of travellers, so it is quite reasonable to see it being used to prevent a state from trying to limit the mobility of citizens from other states (again, in the supposition that the state restricting it cannot show a compelling reason to do so). AFAIK, only the Federal Government could invoke the Commerce Clause; I would expect a lot more people (in your example, the PA government or maybe even any PA driver) would have standing.
Finding Certainty There is only one way for certain: Do the supposedly unlawful thing Get sued (civil) or prosecuted (criminal) Go to court - if you win it wan't illegal If you lose, appeal to the next appellate court in the chain In one of those courts refuses to hear your appeal - it was illegal Repeat as necessary until you reach the Supreme Court - if you win it wan't illegal If you lose or the Supreme Court refuses to hear your appeal - it was illegal. Of course, this whole cycle will take a few years and quite a lot of money. Not certain but persuasive Consult a lawyer: their area of expertise is knowing what the law is and how it will likely apply to your circumstances. Of course, they can be wrong about this because - see above. Why is this so hard? Common law jurisdictions, of which Florida is an example, do not have a "Code of Laws" where you can look things up and see if they are legal or illegal. The Common Law in Florida is partially enacted law (by the US, Florida, County, City and finally your housing corporation) and partially unenacted law (decisions made by courts about both the enacted and unenacted law). In fact, enacted law is usually quite ambiguous until it has a body of unenacted (or case) law that surrounds it and provides guidance on how the courts will interpret it. Part of a lawyers skill is knowing (within their area of expertise) what the relevant case and statute law is with respect to the specific facts of the case, or knowing how to research them. Publish and be damned! You can always take the Duke of Wellingtons approach. In common law jurisdictions, everything is legal unless there is a law (enacted or unenacted) that makes it otherwise. If you do not believe that the action you wish to take is illegal then advise the other party that you will give them 24 hours to come back with a court injunction to prohibit it, otherwise you will proceed. You can't call a bluff harder than this!
I see lots of possible issues here, including: Will the Apprendi decision be given retroactive effect? Were the constitutional issues raised at the time of trial, and if not will a court permit them to be raised later? Will a court agree with the law review publication? Will the facts in your case be sufficiently similar to the cited case? Beyond those, in a section 1983 suit many public employees have qualified immunity unless the legal point was already "well established" when the violation occurred. To pursue this you will need to work with a lawyer skilled in this area. No one on this forum can possibly given you a reliable answer as to whether you have a reasonable case.