>>111792254>doesn't this case effectively set a precedent establishing that any mutated survivors are not 'human'
no, precedent does not work that way
what Marvel argued was that their characters had a backstory which pushed them from human into superhuman, or in other words, fantasy (a fiction, not a reality: in reality, mutation even within our own bodies is so common that you're probably walking around with some cells that aren't "you" right now)
since there is or was, bizarrely, a lower rate of tax on non-human toys, and since the X-Men as a franchise have argued *from the start* that mutants are not human and not treated as such within the confines of that fiction, their argument was worth consideration and the court came down on their side, ie, that the X-Men were clearly a product of fantasy, as much as a centaur or an ogre or a fairy, and therefore not human, and as such should pay the lower rate
what this didn't do was set any precedent for how mutation in real persons is dealt with under law; since such persons could only be the offspring of humans, they would automatically fall under the same rights etc as any other human (until we discover aliens or create uplifts from animals, which is a whole other set of arguments also not covered by this judgement)
in an X-Men comic, you'd be right, but that's because X-Men comics are pure melodrama where everybody strives to be the biggest possible asshole they can be, stare decisis doesn't exist, and the world is a series of competing fiefdoms run by billionaires (which... yeah, I get it, but it's really not reality)