Friedland: Why can't we reach the merits here? / Flentje: A state entity can't assert these kind of rights.
-
-
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.
-
Clifton: Do you consider that religious discrim? / Purcell: No, not at all. / Clifton: Then, how is this a violation?
-
Purcell: Exact action can be constitutional at times and not at others. / Clifton: Is this that ban? / Purcell: No, it doesn't have to be.
-
Clifton: You can allege anything! I don't have to believe it. / Friedland: You've submitted exhibits, haven't you? / Purcell: Yes.
-
Clifton: You can't say you need more time, you brought the TRO. I don't think allegations cut it at this stage.
-
Canby: Who has burden here? / Purcell: DOJ, b/c they're seeking a stay.
-
Purcell: Again, standard should be mandamus std. Because in neither form nor substance nor intent was TRO supposed to be PI.
-
Purcell is saying the case should go back to dist ct to allow a full opinion, which could then be appealed.
-
Friedland: Would you have more evid at dist ct on standing or merits? / Purcell: Mainly standing, but not sure exactly where we'd end up.
-
Purcell raises the statutory claim — noting that would avoid constitutional issue. (1152) / Canby notes that would only address visa issue.
-
Purcell: DOJ says he's acting pursuant to congressional authority. We say it's contrary to congressional authority.
-
Clifton: There have been presidential orders singling out nations. / Purcell: Those were narrower. / Clifton: Principle, tho, is the same.
-
Purcell: There have not been cases. Every one of those examples were far more tailored. / Clifton: But, we do this all the time?!
-
Purcell: 1182 has exceptions — but not an above-the-board treatment like in this EO. ... The court can review, should review this order.
-
Flentje gets 5 minutes for rebuttal.
- 19 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.