I missed these...they are a bit more exacting:

"I conclude that Pub. L.109-3 (“the Act”) is unconstitutional and, therefore,this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case under that1special Act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise have in this case."

"I write separately to explain how various provisions of Pub. L. 109-3 are an unconstitutional infringement on the core principles of separation of powers and how this dynamic nullifies the exercise of federal jurisdiction in this case.

"Because these provisions constitute legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions (known as a 'rule of decision'), the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle. An act of Congress violates separation of powers if it requires federal courts to exercise their Article III power 'in a manner repugnant to the text, structure, and traditions of Article III.' Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 218, 115 S. Ct. 1447, 1452 (1995)."