In regard to the court case in Washington D.C., I agree that many of the posters in this thread have gotten way off topic by discussing such topics as "jurisdiction" and "standing."
This is just plain old falsehood, and I wonder how you could not know that, TC, since it is the reason why the appeals court case cited in the opening post of this thread is in the appeals court to begin with.
Our new associate RT is entirely correct.
. . . the first question a judge must evaluate for any novel legal theory, is whether or not their particular court is the proper venue in which to pursue it.
That is exactly what the lower court's ruling concerned - not the validity of the legal claim, but the appropriateness of the venue. The lower court ruled that they did not have jurisdiction.
