I certainly expect judges to be intelligent, well-read, and to understand a variety of literary styles; but recognizing sarcasm sometimes requires knowing in advance the falsehood of the statement; and we can't always expect that of judges or others in a courtroom, as intelligent as they may be. I'm sure it would be checked if it were a key piece of evidence presented in court, but the words may still influence some decisions made outside of courtrooms, some of which will end up influencing what happens inside of courtrooms.
Is this too indirect or rare a cost to weigh against reading pleasure? One response would be to ask whether reducing sarcasm necessarily have a cost in writing & reading pleasure. Sometimes giving thought to phrasing and exploring literary devices can be rewarding; and conversely sometimes sarcasm (language consisting of bitter or wounding remarks) can be unpleasant to read. So maybe good can come from what at first appears a burdensome imposition on expression.