 Or they'll agree with the law and hold that it is constitutional. I don't think the court's going to be in a position where they want to sort of tinker and draw their own line. That kind of line drawing is appropriate for a legislature to do, not a court. That case was 1982, and then a few years later in 1986, the state changed its constitution to add language that guaranteed shoreline rights and then outlined specific privileges people have along the shore, things like walking, fishing, gathering seaweed, even leaving the shore to swim.