"has sufficient grounds" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when you wish to indicate that there is enough evidence or justification for an action to be taken or a decision to be made. For example: After careful consideration, the court decided that the defendant had sufficient grounds to be found guilty.
If the government has sufficient grounds for imprisoning people, or for censoring their speech, it is entitled to do so.
But we would not then want to say Julie has sufficient grounds to conclude that a is better than b and to conclude that b is better than a.
We do not want to say in that case that she has sufficient grounds to draw each of two incompatible conclusions (that a is better than b, and that b is better than a; these are incompatible provided the better-than relation is asymmetric, as I assume).
If the actors do not become weary of it, since they are fools, then the spectator will when, after one or another act, he has sufficient grounds for assuming that the never-ending pace will be eternally the same" (PPOE, 68).
Where the regime still has sufficient ground forces and the ability to deploy them as killing squads into target neighborhoods, it is doing so, usually after withering bombing and shelling assaults.
A state appellate panel, in a split decision, ruled on Tuesday that the police did not have sufficient grounds to make such an inquiry.
The indictment last week of the executive director of a Muslim charity based in Chicago on conspiracy and racketeering charges shows that we have sufficient grounds for targeting terrorist fund-raising without indulging in guilt by association.
"If that officer does not have sufficient grounds or X-ray vision to see they are carrying a weapon, and they are concerned they may have something to cause harm, that should trigger a search.
It is highly doubtful, however, whether he had sufficient grounds for claiming a priori insight into the nature of space and still more that of time; his case for thinking that space and time are "pure" intuitions was palpably inadequate.
But it said it "did not believe that the Telegraph – although acting no doubt with legitimate intent – had sufficient grounds, on a prima facie basis, to justify their decision to send the reporters in".
