Hawaii responds to DOJ's cert petition in the #travelban 3.0 case: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4349484-17-965-Trump-v-Hawaii-Brief-in-Opposition.html … #SCOTUSpic.twitter.com/tUREb97cl3
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
But if the court takes the case, it is resolving the case — so, it's effectively an alternative argument.
Is it, tho? It seems like it's restating question 2 - granted, question 2 is written poorly. Question 1 could moot question 2, though, and question 3 is independent.
You know that's what lawyers do, right?
[That was a joke.]
In this case, obviously the Q.3 addition is key. Hawaii opposes granting cert, but if the court does, they want the Establishment Clause question on the table. That's an alternative argument.
But the establishment clause is part of Q2, isn't it? So it's on the table. And if they win on that, presumably it gets a different answer to q3. I'm not saying Hawaii is wrong here, I just find it difficult myself to do this as appellee/respondent.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.