-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Maybe it seems automatic...but given the (indirect) SCOTUS beatdown of the lower courts, I wouldn't assume anything.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AndyGrewal @chrisgeidner
I haven't read P's docs. But tweets suggest that this has been presented by P's as "Muslim Ban 2.0." Those hysterics will *not* prevail.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AndyGrewal
I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. And I have read all the filings.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @AndyGrewal
"Muslim Ban 2.0" talk was back in March when this was signed. We're quite beyond that at this point, and it's a very diff discussion.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Andy Grewal Retweeted Neal Katyal
Not sure how to reconcile your view with what P's are sayinghttps://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/883378261165842433 …
Andy Grewal added,
Neal KatyalVerified account @neal_katyalIn record time,our#HawaiivsTrump brief filed,asks CtAppeals to put stop to illegal Trump muslim/refugee ban interp. https://www.hoganlovells.com/publications/documents-in-state-of-hawaii-et-al-v-trump-a-challenge-to-president-trumps-march-6-2017-travel-ban …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AndyGrewal @chrisgeidner
They are quite plainly calling this a "muslim ban interpretation." Seems like
#MuslimBan 2.0 to me.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
My point is not about merits. (I have no idea whether requested relief should be granted. Leave it to immig/civpro experts). 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AndyGrewal @chrisgeidner
Point is that this *seems* to be a continuation of "advocacy through tweets and innuendo," which I think SCOTUS rejected. 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.