“So we were defrauded into ruling against your position and now you want to argue that you didn’t have that case in the first place because you don’t like the outcome of your fraud namely that you cannot use the courts to force someone to speak against their deeply held religious convictions.”
Andy, I don’t understand your post. I agree with the result of the 303 case. The 303 case was not a fraudulently brought case. It was a declaratory judgment action, which is a well-established procedure to clarify ones rights. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/declaratory_judgment
I am good with the 303 decision and I believe it well and validly decided. But cooking up a nonplaintiff to bring a case even for declaratory relief when said plaintiff does not exist or does not have that case is among those things that fall in the category of barratry. As Gorsuch notes they are not deciding some other case. They are deciding this case. What happens if therefore this case does not actually exist. Now, the background is sort of irrelevant because the parties stipulated to the facts and sought judgment based on those facts. It still sounds like a fraud on the court.