In a landmark 6-3 decision that legal scholars are calling "technically binding" and "emotionally exhausting," the Supreme Court has ruled that Americans now possess a fundamental constitutional right to be mildly inconvenienced by government paperwork.
The ruling, which spans 87 pages and cites everything from the Federalist Papers to a 1994 Circuit Court opinion about a parking ticket in Ohio, has sent shockwaves through a nation that was really hoping we were done with this sort of thing for at least a week.
Some Guy Who Just Wanted to Renew His License*, originated when a Michigan man named Dave attempted to update his address at the DMV and was told he needed a notarized form.
Dave, apparently unfamiliar with how government works, sued.
Three years and eleven lower court rulings later, here we are.
The majority opinion, written by a Justice who shall remain nameless because honestly, you already know which one, argues that the Founding Fathers "clearly intended" for citizens to endure a minimum baseline of bureaucratic nonsense.
Legal experts are divided. "This is a sweeping reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause that will reshape American life as we know it," said one professor from Yale, who then immediately asked if this could be quoted anonymously because she didn't want to deal with the emails.
Meanwhile, the dissent argued that the majority had "invented a right out of thin air," which is a sentence that has appeared in literally every Supreme Court dissent since 1803 and has lost all meaning at this point.
The practical implications are staggering.
Within hours of the ruling, state governments across the country began updating their websites to add at least one broken hyperlink per page.
The IRS announced it would now require a fax number for all digital filings.
And the TSA, seizing the moment, confirmed that shoes must now be removed *and* individually photographed before boarding.
Legal scholars predict a wave of new lawsuits from citizens arguing that their specific inconvenience exceeds the constitutional maximum, which the Court has defined as "roughly the amount you'd feel waiting in line at a CVS." Not everyone is upset.
The ruling has created a booming cottage industry of "constitutional inconvenience consultants" who, for a modest fee, will stand in line for you, fill out your forms, and then bill you for emotional damages.
Florida has already announced a pilot program where residents can pay an extra $200 to skip the inconvenience entirely, which critics say defeats the purpose but also sounds like a pretty good deal, honestly.
The White House issued a statement expressing "deep concern" and "strong support" depending on which paragraph you read.
Congressional leaders vowed to introduce legislation overturning the decision, a promise they have made 47 times this session and delivered on zero.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has already agreed to hear a follow-up case next term: *Does the Right to Inconvenience Apply to Jury Duty?* At press time, Dave was reportedly trying to renew his license again.
The DMV told him he needs a different form.
He is now suing over that, too. **Our take:** The Supreme Court has once again proven that it is the only branch of government capable of making C-SPAN feel like a thriller.
Whether you agree with the ruling or not, one thing is clear: nobody on that bench has ever waited four hours at a DMV, or they would have ruled differently.
Final Thoughts
We're not lawyers, we just write about them.