Hi All,
Corbett here.
RichardKenner had it right:
Originally Posted by
RichardKenner
There's a specific law that says that certain types of rulings (and the essence of the case is what those types are) aren't the jurisdiction of the lower courts, but rather that the appeals courts have original jurisdiction. Corbett's argument is that the types of ruling that the law was meant for were ones where there was an administrative evidenciary hearing, which serves the purpose of the lower court and hence giving original jurisdiction to an appeals court to review that hearing makes sense. But this ruling (if it even is a ruling, which is the issue before the court) hasn't had an such hearing, so Corbett argues that it belongs in the lower court.
However, this issue is now definitively settled, so Corbett will presumably file a new action in the appeals court and we'll get a decision on its merits from that court.
A few have asked why I took this issue so far, or if it was a "publicity stunt." I believe that every citizen has a right to a trial by jury for constitutional grievances. The implications of this are clearly wider than my case against the TSA: by not taking this case, the Supreme Court has just chopped off a few more inches of our due process rights. In this case, it's even more suspect because it was entirely unclear that Congress even intended to limit district court jurisdiction of my variety of case. The TSA has stretched Congress' intent beyond any natural reading of their words, the district court bought it, the appeals court stamped it, and the Supreme Court ignored it. Truly sad.
It is also correct that my next step is to bring it back to the Court of Appeals (I'll do so in the 11th Circuit, not DC). I will have that process started within 30 days.
--Jon