Well, no, there are several ways that a court can refuse to hear a case that has nothing to do with the merits of the issues in question. This judge used one. He wimped out. He could have taken it.
There was a most important constitutional question involved. The transfer of powers from the legislative branch to the executive branch is what happens when the legislative branch lets the executive branch go to war without a formal declararion under 1-8-11.
If that's not a violation of the separation of powers, we're so far gone as to moot any of this discussion.
Plus, this is a federal district court. A federal district court can't "settle" a constitutional issue by refusing to hear it, WHATEVER THE REASON they don't, as far I can tell. 