Clifton: That's pretty abstract. It's not like there haven't been processes in place to take care who's coming in? Any ev there's real risk?
-
-
Flentje goes back to the "right of the state on behalf of the people." / Clifton says, what about the universities?
-
Flentje: What is the constitutional interest of the university? / Clifton: In Din, she was claiming loss of consortium, but it was his visa.
-
Friedland: What about Pierce v. Society of Sisters? / Flentje: The university was challenging a state law that affected it students.
-
Friedland: Why can't we reach the merits here? / Flentje: A state entity can't assert these kind of rights.
-
Flentje adds that the order doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion, and no equal protection problems.
-
Canby: Could the president ban Muslims? / Flentje: That's not this. / Judges: Answer. / Flentje: A US citizen w a connection.
-
Friedland: What's the purpose of your standing argument? / Flentje repeats standing standards. There are plenty of cases w people affected.
-
Flentje: "I'm not sure I'm convincing the court (on standing)," so moving on to arg the TRO is overbroad.
-
Friedland: States are claiming EO violates Estab Clause. If so, isn't it facially invalid.
-
Flentje: Scope of injunction should be limited to the specific claims advanced by the states.
-
Flentje: Refugee provision involves people who have never been here, for example. Court should immediately stay that portion.
-
NOW UP: Noah Purcell, Washington solicitor general.
-
Purcell: Appealability question. / Clifton: Why should we care? Are you suggesting mandamus is the only route?
-
Clifton: Why shouldn't we view this as an injunction? / Purcell: This fairly limited. In SEIU case, for ex, the order was four months.
-
Purcell: If ct treats this as appealable order, then this is what will be appealed. If it goes back, then we'd get a more full PI decision.
-
Purcell: Going toward the merits, I'd first focus on the lack of irreparable harm. The EO itself caused the irreparable harm.
-
Clifton: What's the harm to the state of Washington? / Purcell: Stranded overseas, unable to visit families, tax revenue.
-
Friedland: If we reject parens patriae, can we consider broad harms or only proprietary harms?
-
Purcell: Maybe those would move to the public interest weighing under the standards.
-
Purcell: Establish Clause violations themselves show irreparable injury. In sum, fed gov't hasn't made its showing to stay TRO.
-
Canby: What about DOJ's four corners argument? / Purcell: No. See Din / Cardenas.
-
Clifton: How many affected are people w Washington residency, etc. / Purcell: At pleading stage, we allege thousands. Notes LPR inclusion...
-
... initially, and they've changed position. Until they change the order — they can't just say it doesn't apply.
-
Clifton: Why shouldn't we limit the TRO to those clearly? / Purcell: Doesn't solve Estab or EP harms.
-
Purcell: Also doesn't address people here affected due to having people abroad. Gov't hasn't addressed how it would implement.
-
Friedland: Should Larson or Lemon apply? / Purcell: Larson.
-
Friedland: If we agree about Larson, is your EP claim redundant? / Purcell: Basically.
-
Clifton: What percentage of Muslims worldwide are from those seven countries? I see about 15%. / Purcell: To prove religious disc ...
-
... we just have to show desire to harm. / Clifton: How? / Purcell: Intent. The public statements from president and advisers.
-
Purcell: You just have to show desire. / Clifton: But, it's such a low percentage? They've determined those countries are of concern.
- 33 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.