Reads like a newspaper editorial? Maybe the first paragraph but he quickly goes into the relevant case law and Constitutional support.

I've read enough Supreme Court opinions to see that his is a very different style but I'm not sure that that's a bad thing. It is remarkably clear, gets to the core constitutional issue, and sticks to principles. (In a footnote, he even chides the concurring opinion for its utilitarianism.)

I'm quite impressed.