From Madeline: The Eleventh Circuit sort-of affirms an injunction barring enforcement of a Florida law restricting ownership of property in the state by Chinese nationals. Plaintiffs challenged three provisions. The district court denied the injunction as to all three on the merits--plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court of appeals affirmed as to two of the provisions. But as to the third, it found that the injunction should be denied for lack of standing. So the case illustrates the movement between them and how standing prevents courts from touching the constitutional merits, creating more procedural burdens.
One more point: The disposition is arguably phrased incorrectly. The court did not reverse as to the third provision, since it agreed with and affirmed the district court judgment--the injunction should be denied. It did so for a different reason--lack of standing (thus lack of jurisdiction) rather than on the merits.
Further evidence that courts are the least aware of procedural niceties.
