The GPL is not like a EULA as it does not attempt to take away any right you have as the owner of a copy. US copyright law makes a distinction between owning the object and owning the copyright. Owning the object entitles you to use it and sell it. Making new copies or doing public performances is reserved to the copyright owner. GPL does not have any bearing on using or selling but does offer privileges to make and distribute new copies if its terms are met. Without the GPL license only the copyright owner can make new copies.
I have read some arguments that strong first sale rights can be used to subvert the copyleft properties of the GPL. It goes something along the lines of obtaining a stream of physical copies of GPL works, then modifying each one and distributing it without the source code of the modification. I can't say I fully understand the argument but the people who put it forward claim first sale exposes the GPL to being bypassed. I don't credit it. Even if I did I think the issue is freedom and the freedoms we get from first sale are more important than defending against a hack on the GPL.
It is good to see the Supreme Court do something right. Only 3 votes for utter insanity is good for them lately.