Originally Posted by
jkhuggins
See, that's what's unclear to me. The local court in Florida said it didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case. It's unclear what the appeals court ruled; it could be that the appeals court simply ruled that the lower court didn't have jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision.
On the other hand, it could be that the appeals court actually heard the case against AIT and threw it out on the merits.
Again ... I'd love it if someone who can speak lawyer could comment ...
I'm probably as ignorant as you in these matters, but my understanding is that the Federal Circuit and Supreme Courts are primarily looking to reverse procedural errors by lower courts, rather than changing decisions they disagree with. In this case, perhaps the lowest court, who originally dismissed the case, had an entirely valid reason for doing so (other than "caving" to other gov't offices who want this to stay out of court).
If the plaintiff's case were somehow invalid (for a procedural or substantive reason) and that was the basis on which the court declined to hear the case, rather than saying "they're the gov't, they can do what they want, case dismissed" then the higher courts made the right decision to uphold the lower court's ruling. I, too, would love more information on the original case (haven't opened the links above yet to look, that's my next stop).