Maybe he does, but since Congress can't restrain the Supreme Court in other ways (eg by taking away the power of judicial review), omitting the caveat in this case is a serious oversight that is going to result in many, if not most, readers getting entirely the wrong impression.

Journalists who write on legal topics have an ethical obligation to provide proper context to their readers, few of whom have any legal training. Frankly, I think that journalists ought to have a JD themselves before covering these topics, in much the same way tht science journalists ought to have a BS.