I hate to nitpick a tweet, but I'd say that they offered a path to "request it," rather than "get it."
9th Circuit won't clarify #travel ban scope, but offers path for plaintiffs to get it before district court http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/07/07/17-16366%20Order.pdf …pic.twitter.com/8SU4GZfPPu
-
-
-
I meant get the issue properly before the district court
-
Yup, I knew what you meant (hence I hate to nitpick). But casual reader might think that relief auto. granted if P's just did A, B, & C.
-
You obviously know what you're talking about. But lay person may have been thrown off & hence my comment. (Just a tweet -- not a big deal.)
-
Maybe it seems automatic...but given the (indirect) SCOTUS beatdown of the lower courts, I wouldn't assume anything.
-
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.
- 16 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Is this partially the 9th circuit responding to SCOTUS telling them they'd overreached?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.