Can someone give examples of when the US Supreme Court ruled on what they thought the law's intent was versus what it actually said? It's always been my understanding that they rule exclusively on the letter of the law. They may rule in favor of some aspects of a law / case, and they may invalidate some other aspects of the same law / case. Generally, they decide on what is or isn't Constitutionally protected.

 

If they said that they believe the law, as is, is constitutionally permissible, then I'd (kind of) understand their ruling. However, if what OP is saying is true, then they're saying that the law is only permissible when interpreted as they choose to interpret. 

---