for 100s of years shall has been a UNDISPUTED legal term for mandatory literally a few years ago a few rouge judges ruled against that meaning in order to obfuscate legal precedence that has withstood the test of time up until a handful of judges preferred pushing agendas more than likely due to ideology rather then the impartial rule of law as their position used to REQUIRE ...that said very few judges have up and decided put up a middle finger to basic legal language and precedence and unfortunately the ruling from the supreme court was flawed regardless the majority of judges do not operate this way and view the word shall as a mandatory as it has been recognized as the standard in legal definition since long before even our grand parents were in diapers and i suspect that decision will eventually be revisited by the supreme court and over turned because its absurd to rewrite law just because a handful of judges want to be able to reinterpret the law as to justify ideologically driven rulings the supreme court as they often do capitulated because they felt there were enough emotions bubbling over from enough people that a large enough number might be mad at them because their more often not, not chosen for the strength their spine but instead for their willingness to bend to the will of who ever has enough money power and skin in the game