I could not find the actual ruling.
But in order to overturn the previous ruling and declare it constitutional - doesn't that mean there was something to actually argue? Meaning?
Well - if the ruling is that the lower court made an error because it misinterpreted (ie- they do not have the right to detain US citizens as some claim due to language) - well then that sets the precedent that you cannot detain US citizens and one could use this ruling to fight it.
BUT - since they ruled it is constitutional - didn't they basically just drop the illusion that it doesn't pertain to US citizens? Basically he cleared it up for us - you're damn right it applies to you AND it is legal.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: