The author doesn't make a particularly good case for it though, because it's relatively straightforward to define whether an aircraft is or isn't exceeding Mach 1 (and even more straightforward to stay well below it), whereas decibel levels from a sonic boom depend on the position of the observer amongst other things, and what's "acceptable" is as the article discusses still a research problem. Non-US markets and airframers exist, a first generation Mach 1 airliner existed and failed to gain traction, people worked on "low boom" supersonic airliner projects anyway, and if a working implementation didn't remain purely hypothetical, Congress is perfectly capable of amending a law.

He also misses the much bigger impediment to supersonic jets than a local rule in the US being fuel cost, most amusingly when he points out that 1973 was the beginning of a so-called Great Stagnation but somehow misses the oil embargo and the resulting fears over fuel prices affecting everything that decade, including killing the demand for Concorde in the rest of the world and changing airframers' focus to fuel economy. I think when he's suggesting that only a "vocal minority" (which exceeded the number of people ever to have experienced the rich person's pleasure of supersonic flight) held us back from linear progress in commercial aviation speed so we'd all be flying around at Mach 4 by now, he's also being governed by emotions.

I did read it. Most of it was arguing "Hey, it's not that bad, we did some tests and only a few folks were really bothered about it, and some people are bothered by anything, so screw them!"

If I decide to go live in the middle of nowhere for some solitude, I shouldn't have to defend my choices to enjoy that solitude as "you're just too sensitive!".