I bet all 9 justices read all 2,200 pages of the bill before them. I’m sure they all cross referenced each citation as well.
Following that, I bet they read every brief and position that lawyers have presented for and against.
I’m confident they know what is at stake here.
(sarcasm)
I bet they read every brief and position that lawyers have presented for and against.
The justices would have no reason to read all 2,200 pages of the bill. They are not supposed to invent reasons to hold the law constitutional or unconstitutional. The record was made in the courts below, and their job is to rule based on the arguments raised in the brief. Instead of reading the whole law and finding their own reasons to decide, they should study the sections that have been identified by the lawyers on both sides as having impact on the constitutionality of the law.
If they think that another issue might be important (for example, if they do read the law and find a section that they think might have an impact), then they would ask the lawyers on both sides to prepare briefs to discuss that issue.