This particular legal argument is... let's just say it's "challenging". For any Court to find someone guilty of treason when no charge of treason has been brought by the DOJ would be an unlikely and sharp divergence from hundreds of years of legal tradition. Finding a private cause of action for treason would be equally novel. And since the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction over treason cases, the very most they could do is reverse the lower court's dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
Ok. You may be right on this but my understanding is that because it is a case of national security, Supreme Court has the full authority to decide this case without sending it back to the lower court!
This particular legal argument is... let's just say it's "challenging". For any Court to find someone guilty of treason when no charge of treason has been brought by the DOJ would be an unlikely and sharp divergence from hundreds of years of legal tradition. Finding a private cause of action for treason would be equally novel. And since the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction over treason cases, the very most they could do is reverse the lower court's dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
Ok. You may be right on this but my understanding is that because it is a case of national security, Supreme Court has the full authority to decide this case without sending it back to the lower court!