I can’t recall such language ever being used in a high court finding:
Many of the petitioners are covered private employers within the geographical boundaries of this circuit.5 Their standing6 to sue is obvious—the Mandate imposes a financial burden upon them by deputizing their participation in OSHA’s regulatory scheme, exposes them to severe financial risk if they refuse or fail to comply, and threatens to decimate their workforces (and business prospects) by forcing unwilling employees to take their shots, take their tests, or hit the road.
I like it. It is unambiguous and clear.
The tone of the ruling is wonderful to me. It is, “Well, BS, we ain’t buying your junk anymore.”
“I can’t recall such language ever being used in a high court finding:”
I found the wording amusing as well. Almost like I was helping to write it.