IANAL but I was under the impression that Supreme Court ruling was very specific to the AI itself copyrighting its own produced code. Once a human is involved, it gets a lot more complicated and rests on whether the human's contribution was substantial enough to make it copyrightable under their person.
A fun exercise: When Supreme Court has not ruled on an open legal question of interest, let's ask AI what would be a likely ruling by Supreme Court.
I think SCOTUS might in fact use AI to get a set of possible interpretations of the law, before they come up with their decision. AI might give them good reasons for pros and cons.