On Thursday, the Ninth Circuit denied the Trump Administration’s request to stay Judge James Robart’s Temporary Restraining Order on the President’s questionable executive order suspending visas and immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. Considering the 48-hour turnaround between oral argument and the release of the opinion, the Ninth Circuit provided detailed and thoughtful analysis on Washington’s standing to sue, the procedural posture of the case, and the three major constitutional issues that Washington raised. Yet lacking from the 29-page per curiam (unsigned) opinion, was a discussion on 8 U.S.C. § 1882(f), the broad statute that seemingly provides the President unlimited authority to exclude any aliens he deems to be detrimental to the United States.

Some conservatives have jumped on the Ninth Circuit for failing to analyzing the 8 U.S.C. § 1882(f) in considering this case. And rightly so. Courts typically must try to resolve cases on statutory over constitutional grounds. Yet the Ninth Circuit overlooked statutory considerations and relied on the Due Process Clause to uphold the district court’s TRO.

Despite this erring by not conducting a statutory analysis, the Ninth Circuit came to the right decision.

In a seminal 1952 case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, Justice Robert Jackson laid out the test to analyze Presidential powers. Simply, if (1) Congress has explicitly provided the President powers, his authority is at his highest, (2) if Congress has been silent, his powers at middling, but (3) if the President takes actions inconsistent with Congress’s will, his powers are at his lowest. Plainly, President Trump’s powers in signing his executive order are at its highest because Congress has authorized the President to take such actions.

But failing to analyze § 1882(f) was immaterial. Even though President Trump has wide powers to restrict immigration, he does not have unlimited powers. Indeed, the Youngstown test requires presidential actions to comport to constitutional requirements.

As the Ninth Circuit correctly noted, the executive order likely deprived lawful residents (green card holders) of due process by unilaterally restricting their ability to travel. The federal government tried to get around this point by arguing that green card holders’ due process claims were mooted once the Trump Administration issued an authoritative guidance stating that the executive order does not apply to green card holders. But as the Ninth Circuit correctly pointed out, this did not sufficiently address their concerns because the administration could later change its position. Thus, the executive order was facially invalid because it violated the Due Process Clause.

By no means was the Ninth Circuit perfect. It wrongly held that refugees’ due process rights were violated. And I am far from convinced that Washington has standing in this case. Nonetheless, failing to analyze 8 U.S.C. § 1882(f) was harmless.