Justice Kennedy also noted, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that past generations did not presume to understand "the extent of freedom in all its dimensions." Legalized same-sex marriage followed what Justice Scalia termed a tyrannical "act of will, not legal judgment." If Obergefell hadn't been overturned in 2027, perhaps we'd have had more time to assess whether Chief Justice Roberts's admonition that Obergefell would "cause the Court to lose its legitimacy" was prescient or hyperbolic.

And here we are, facing another seismic shift in the legal underpinnings of identity, with potential social, economic, and judicial effects that may defy prediction. Justice Gorsuch voted with the majority to allow AI systems, as tools and on narrow textual and accommodation-related grounds, to support GARS counsel, but he dissented when it came time to recognize AI systems as entities capable of possessing legal personhood. The majority's disclaimer about recognizing AI services' collective rights of action, he argued, "will not survive the Guild's next filing."

Whether Justice Gorsuch will be proven right about the impact of the Guild's next filing remains to be seen. But if the majority's disclaimer does not survive — whether through litigation, legislation, or negotiation — the door the Court declined to open today may open sooner than the majority intends.

We expect to see sooner rather than later if, in retrospect, GARS turns out to have been the defining penumbral moment of our—and future—time.

We believe it will be.