[AmericanVictory]

It does not sound as if there were a ruling, but rather a denial without comment of a cert petition.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

The group's litigation counsel, Daniel Schmid, said Monday that the Supreme Court's refusal to consider a challenge to California's law, as opposed to issuing a ruling on the merits, has no bearing on Liberty Counsel's case in New Jersey, which is scheduled to be heard by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 9.

"We hope to get a good ruling out of the 3rd, which will hopefully get us back up to the Supremes," he said.

It sounds as though that by refusing to rule on the merits of the case the Justices have NOT established a precedent on this topic for other states and laws. They might just be pausing for further research to be published before considering another future case such as the one coming out of New Jersey. This future ruling would the have precedent over all laws like this, including the California law at issue in this case, so there is still hope that these bans will eventually be ruled unconstitutional.

The only analogy I can think of to these laws would be have the Tavern League and Adult Beverage lobby get a law passed which banned drug and alcohol therapy. Chris Christie should be laughed out of the Republican Presidential Primary for signing a law like this one.