I found the problem: "SCOTUS won't enforce". It's the executive's job to enforce, not the SCOTUS.
How about
the precedent was wrongly decided; not in accord with the original understanding of the 14th Amendment ...?
Here is wording used in
Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U.S. 236 ,246 (1941), an occasion in which the Court overturned the precedent of
Ribnik v. Nebraska,277 U.S. 350 (1928): "We are not concerned, however, with the wisdom, need, or appropriateness of the legislation. Differences of opinion on that score suggest a choice which 'should be left where . . . it was left by the Constitution -- to the states and to Congress.'
Ribnik v. McBride, 277 U. S. 350, 375, dissenting opinion. ... In final analysis, the only constitutional prohibitions or restraints which respondents have suggested for the invalidation of this legislation are those notions of public policy embedded in earlier decisions of this Court but which, as Mr. Justice Holmes long admonished, should not be read into the Constitution. Since they do not find expression in the Constitution, we cannot give them continuing vitality as standards by which the constitutionality of the economic and social programs of the states is to be determined."
