[ajross]

> I don't think it requires the courts to agree

This is misunderstanding civics. Laws are not algorithms. All laws must be interpreted. The government organ responsible for interpreting laws is the judiciary, definitionally.

It's not like there's a condition in a law saying "get the courts to agree". It's that there is a disagreement (among parties with standing) about what the law means. And so they fight about it in court, which is why we have courts.

[JCattheATM]

> It's that there is a disagreement (among parties with standing) about what the law means.

IMO that's being awfully generous.