 It would be unusual, that's for sure. But that, again, is what we're looking at in this situation. What she's ruled here is basically backed up by a concurrence, a single concurrence from Clarence Thomas. That's basically her primary authority. No other justices have demonstrated their interest in overturning this mechanism. Oh, you're talking about an earlier case in which Clarence Thomas voiced an opinion that was not shared by any of the other eight justices. That was the recent case of Trump versus the United States dealing with presidential immunity.