Speaking as a semanticist, it's wild to me that they are phrasing it in terms of whether an *act* is characterized as "official", when what they seem to actually be talking about is whether there exists a *description* of the act that can be characterized as "official".
This is the same John Roberts that has been gutting the VRA with circular logic that the law worked so well at stopping racist voter suppression that we don't need a law against it anymore.
Every single one of his goddamn opinions has been "this umbrella keeps us dry so therefore the rain stopped."
