> Their claim is that the lower courts had one rule, and the Supreme Court announced a new rule. Although I understand where they're coming from, I'm not sure I agree with that characterization: I believe it would be the position of the Supreme Court that their interpretation of the law has /always/ been the correct interpretation of the law, and that Aereo was simply misguided earlier (but that that does not excuse their failure to act in accordance with the law).

That the Supreme Court's interpretation was always correct does not in anyway contradict that the law as applied by the Second Circuit in the case was different, and doesn't say anything about whether the law applied by the Second Circuit previously was consistent with Second Circuit precedent that was binding on the District Court and thus appropriate for Aereo to use a basis for its arguments prior to the Supreme Court ruling.

The key issue, it seems to me, is whether Aereo previously argued facts that make it ineligible for S111 under the law now binding on the District Court, are whether it merely argued that it was not an entity as would be covered under S111 given a position on the law which has since been rejected by the Supreme Court and is therefore no longer valid.