Currently listening in on the IRAP v. Trump 4th circuit travel ban oral arguments.
-
-
Panel isn't asking about evidence of overt animus, really different focus from the 9th
-
DOJ does seem to have gotten its act together since. Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall is arguing, and he's convincing.
-
Judge Harris coming close to asking about animus, Wall talking around it by bringing up Mandel formulation (bona fide & facially legitimate)
-
Judge in Hawaii apparently seemed sympathetic to government's arguments, but that came back with brutal slapdown https://twitter.com/noahmccormack/status/861652774794211330 …
Ce Tweet est indisponible. -
Luv2StandingAnalysis
-
Jeffrey Wall just said "however far their taint theory runs" and he emphasized "taint" in a really hilarious way, sorry I am twelve
-
This is especially funny because this page is screenshotted and cited in briefs already, it's too late it's too late
-
Sorry sorry I'm trying to delete it
-
Wall is saying that the district court incorrectly set aside Mandel, Judge King is saying that the Lemon Test is what you use for Est Clause
-
Jeffrey Wall tries to characterize evidence of animus as "handful of campaign statements." Judge snaps back it was reaffirmed after election
-
Judge Floyd asks if there's anything other than "willful blindness" that would let them get behind this lmao
-
Hahaha now that we've gotten going these judges seem extremely skeptical and mad
-
One judge, "What would be wrong with a ban on Muslims, in your view?"
-
Jeffrey Wall says that it would violate Mandel because it would not be facially legitimate, then when asked to clarify, says it differently
-
A judge calls him out for changing his answer.
-
Wall is a great oralist and sounds very sure of himself but honestly he's not being very logically consistent.
-
DOJ seems to now be taking the position that Mandel is actually rational basis review
-
That doesn't seem right to me, doesn't seem to be how he's describing Mandel anyways
-
Wall: In text and operation it does not seem to operate on the basis of religion
-
Wall emphasizing coequal status of executive branch, gets flowery about how he was elected, sworn into office, etc
-
Judge: That doesn't give him the right to violate the Establishment Clause.
-
Judge: Has the president ever repudiated what he's said about the Muslim ban? Wall: He has.
-
Judges now chiming in saying he's changed what he's said but never repudiated. Judge: It's still on his website!
-
*Ron Howard voice*: It was not still on his website.
-
(Wall does not appear to know that the statement has been deleted off the website)
-
We'll get more clarity into how the en banc panel is feeling about the case when the plaintiffs argue, but right now they seem quite hostile
-
(Quite hostile to the government, I mean.)
-
Oddly getting bogged down in whether nationals of 7 countries would be detrimental to nat sec of US under 1182(f)
-
Wall definitely trying to push that it's all campaign statements but that's not true and the judges don't seem to be buying it.
- 44 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.