Reasons for invalidating
12 – Getting drunk by taking alcohol or drugs invalidates wudu.It is definitely haram to take intoxicating drinks but the amount that does not make a person drunk does not invalidate wudu.This means that they cannot satisfy the requirement that they have suffered an actual or imminent injury-in-fact that is concrete and particularized.Judge O'Connor attempts to get around this problem by arguing that denying standing "would run headlong into the well-established doctrine that individuals need not first disobey a law to earn standing to challenge it." There is such a well-established doctrine but, contra Judge O'Connor, this applies where there is an actual threat of prosecution or some other legal or practical consequence from failing to comply with the challenged law, and this point is made abundantly clear by the cases Judge O'Connor cites in the accompanying footnote.Setting aside any procedural questions about Judge O'Connor's latest actions, I believe this opinion illustrates why the U. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit should dismiss this case on standing grounds.In his opinion, Judge O'Connor endeavors to explain why he does not believe the intervenor states will succeed in challenging his decision.It is reported from Imam Hulwani that there is no objection to acting in accordance with the second view when there is a real necessity.
11 – When the time for a prayer ends, wudu of an excused person is invalidated.
* According to Shafiis, leakage of blood, pus, yellow liquid that does not come from the genital organs and anus does not invalidate wudu. It does not matter whether the thing that is vomited is food, water or bile.
If the total amount of what is vomited amounts a mouthful, it invalidates wudu even if it is vomited in small amounts. If saliva is more than blood, wudu is not invalidated.
Judge O'Connor nonetheless spends twenty pages defending and reiterating the conclusions of his prior decision—and repeating many of the mistakes I've previously identified.
As standing is a threshold inquiry, the balance of this post will focus on Judge O'Connor's expanded standing analysis, which is no better than the standing analysis in his prior opinion, and is directly contrary to applicable precedent (including those cases Judge O'Connor cites throughout the course of his opinion).