It&#x27;s funny, my first passing thought was collusion. It&#x27;s meritless and baseless, but I assume it stems from my finding it frustrating that the courts allow a thing to continue <i>before</i> they rule on its Constitutionality. It would seem to me that stopping unconstitutional behavior by the executive branch should be the most important thing before the court, and something that should not drag out for a decade. So why <i>does</i> the court allow a program that may be violating millions of peoples&#x27; constitutional rights to continue, all the while agreeing with and ruling in favor of government stall tactics?<p>It&#x27;s amazing to me that the court <i>agreed</i> with the executive that they had no right to judge on executive constitutionality! I get that it&#x27;s procedural, but is it true that there has to be a ruling on something from a lower court before a higher court can even consider it? (And is it weird that they can rule on the procedure of a thing but not a thing?)