One would assume this is in reference to legal decisions involving emoji, not inserting the gavel and joy emoji in decisions for fun. A murder case where the defendant sent the gun and skull emoji to the victim prior to the time of death, for example.
I didn't come to the same conclusion. The remark as written states "if and how judges display emojis in their opinions", as opposed to the manner in which emojis convey information and how that may be interpretted. This appears to be in the context of one vendor's emoji differing from another's in subtle yet distinct ways. To be honest, the only assumption I made was that they would be handled precisely as you've exemplified...
>> A murder case where the defendant sent the gun and skull emoji to the victim prior to the time of death, for example.
...in a descriptive manner. To be sure, IANAL, but legal opinion doesn't exactly have a reputation of being short winded, if you will.
Seriously?