An appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of the US claiming that the United States diplomatic, military, and financial support violated international law and the Genocide Convention upheld a prior decision to dismiss the case. It was dismissed July 15th, affirming the lower court ruling on the case. The lower court found that the lawsuit was not justiciable, and that it fell under the “political questions doctrine - which includes certain matters from judicial review. The lower court reasoned that the case involved issues of foreign policy, military strategy, and diplomatic relations - all entrusted to the Executive and Legislative branches of the US government. Allowing the case would infringe upon separation of powers, and does not align with precedent in similar cases, importantly, Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc.

In this judgment, the court used the Corrie case to support its decision that the plaintiffs' lawsuit was not justiciable under the political question doctrine. In Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., the Ninth Circuit had previously held that a lawsuit against Caterpillar for providing bulldozers used by the Israeli Defense Forces to destroy homes in the Palestinian Territories presented non-justiciable political questions.

The court in the present case drew a parallel between Corrie and the plaintiffs' claims, emphasizing that both cases involved challenges to U.S. foreign policy decisions regarding Israel. In Corrie, the court had determined that allowing the case to proceed would require the judiciary to question the political branches' decision to grant military aid to Israel. Similarly, in this case, the court reasoned that the plaintiffs' lawsuit, which sought to enjoin U.S. support for Israel in Gaza, would also intrude upon the political branches' discretion in foreign affairs and military matters.

By invoking Corrie, the court reinforced the principle that the judiciary should not interfere in matters of foreign policy and national security that are constitutionally delegated to the Executive and Legislative branches. This reference to Corrie served to underscore the court's reluctance to engage in matters that could indirectly indict or condemn U.S. foreign policy choices, especially in sensitive contexts like the conflict in Gaza.