This opinion will be fun reading . For example this opinion cites one of the other cases that have ruled on these issue
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.243061/gov.uscourts.cod.243061.52.0_1.pdf
At least one other court has subsequently confronted the question Respondents
pose—what does “invasion” mean?—and rejected virtually identical arguments now
advanced by Respondents in their instant opposition. See J.A.V., 2025 WL 1257450, at
*15 (“[N]umerous sources contemporaneous to the enactment of the [Act] [are sources]
in which ‘invasion’ and ‘predatory incursion’ expressly reference or imply military action.”).
The Court finds J.A.V.’s analysis persuasive and adopts it, bolstering its prior conclusion
in the TRO order that “invasion” demands military action. See D.B.U., 2025 WL 1163530,
at *10. And as to the same definition Respondents cite here—that “invasion” merely
means “hostile entrance”—J.A.V. did not equivocate: “Respondents identify no other
historical records supporting their proposed meaning of ‘invasion,’ and they offer no
sources from the nation’s founding era as to the ordinary meaning of ‘predatory
incursion.’” Id. The Court finds Respondents’ briefing here likewise lacking.
Accordingly, the Court agrees with Petitioners—consistent with Founding-era
definitions and historical sources, including those cited in Petitioners’ preliminary
injunction motion—that the word “invasion” as used in the Act “contemplate[s] military
action.” D.B.U., 2025 WL 1163530, at *10 (citations omitted); J.A.V., 2025 WL 1257450,
at *16 (“The historical records that the parties present, supplemented by the additional
records that the Court reviewed, demonstrate that at the time of the [Act’s] enactment,
the plain, ordinary meaning of ‘invasion’ was an entry into the nation’s territory by a
military force or an organized, armed force, with the purpose of conquering or obtaining
control over territory.”) (emphasis added); ECF No. 45 at 18–21.
= new reply since forum marked as read