Justice Gorsuch joined in the dissent, and they would have reached a different verdict.

They would have.

And, you know, I think...

This really, what we saw in the dissent, in my mind, tracked more with what we heard in arguments about some of the concerns and that the issues raised in the dissent were not new, right? I mean, these were arguments that we did hear quite a bit about in oral argument during that process.

And essentially, it came down to not agreeing with that preemption decision and and saying we need another avenue for these types of of health safety warning information to be evaluated because one the epa process is imperfect and slow you know and that you know there's new information coming, or we need something that can happen faster, right? And can spur EPA to act.

So essentially, you know, this aspect of giving consumers and users an avenue that provides more protection to them, which is ultimately, you know, the goal of these types of laws.

And so they would not have found that preemption aspect.

forward to success.