In response, Mooppan repeatedly emphasizes: "Your spouse's family becomes your family" in explaining why in-laws are covered.
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Moving on to the refugee resettlement assurance part, Mooppan says the stay from SCOTUS is virtually dispositive of the question.
1 reply 3 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak is up now for Hawaii, arguing that the government has gone too far.
1 reply 2 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Sinzdak argues DOJ is arguing "new standards, not from the Supreme Court, but of the government’s own invention."
1 reply 5 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Judge Hawkins hitting at distinction between immigrants, with statutory rights, and refugees, which he says is a "discretionary" process.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
(Specifically, in reference to the stay / injunction issue — as opposed to the merits.)
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Sinzdak: SCOTUS "did not dwell on differences between immigrant and refugees. ... They looked at who will experience concrete hardship."
1 reply 4 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Mooppan is up for rebuttal, focused on the fact that no law uses the plaintiffs' definition of family: A "hodge-podge."
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Gould: "The court will submit the case for decision." </fin>
2 replies 4 retweets 15 likes -
Here's my story on today's travel ban injunction arguments at the Ninth Circuit in Seattle:https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/ninth-circuit-has-tough-questions-on-trump-administrations?utm_term=.gvNNO1VxK#.srBxrpM5b …
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.