KATYAL: Absolutely.
-
-
Hawkins asks if the EO created a "legislative gerrymander" that looked at where visa-holders had recently been, would that pass muster
-
Katyal says yes.
-
He says that what's wrong with the EO is that it blocks a Syrian passport-holder who's lived his whole life in Switzerland.
-
KATYAL: Obviously we don't think Mandel doesn't apply because of Washington v. Trump, but if for some reason you wanted to get into it
-
but if for some reason indeed, neal katyal
-
Katyal runs quickly through a bunch of post-inauguration statements, "All of those things I said are sufficient"
-
Katyal says the president doesn't get any more deference than a consular official when it comes to creating a disfavored religion
-
Gould is now asking about the WHC / DHS letters that gave support to the order
-
Does this mean they have to find bad faith in the WH Counsel's office?
-
[but there was a DHS report that undermined the president?]
-
Katyal says that even if there was a natsec motivation among the cabinet secretaries, doesn't obviate how the president promulgated it
-
KATYAL: If you rule for us you preserve intact the president's power and preserve the status quo.
-
Says that if they rule for Wall, they will open the door to expanding presidential power in a way history says is dangerous.
-
Katyal says that what bind the country together is "the majestic Article III and the contours of the 1st Amendment" and closes out his side.
-
[Article III concerns the judiciary, his closing statement is a subtweet of Trump's attacks on judges, particularly the 9th circuit]
-
Wall has time reserved, and the panel is going to give him a bit more because Katyal went over time.
-
Wall says that the previous 9th is not a square holding on the applicability of Mandel
-
This, I would agree with? The previous 9th decision is procedurally very awkward.
-
WALL: Whatever this court says will govern the president's exercise of that power [under 1152] for generations to come.
-
Wall finally says that even if they're wrong about standing and merits, the scope of the injunction has to be limited to the plaintiffs and
-
a handful of students identified by Hawaii. It cannot be a nationwide injunction.
-
WALL: What the president did here falls squarely within his constitutional and statutory authority.
-
WALL: We know they disagree with his policies but that does not amount to a constitutional crisis.
-
WALL: This debate should go back to where it belongs: the political realm.
-
The court is now in recess. Hawkins thanks them for the "high quality" of their arguments. Yep. that was A+++ lawyering on both sides
-
Might have actually been some of the best oral arguments I've ever heard anywhere, including SCOTUS.
-
We're done! Gonna go make some coffee now.
-
For another perspective, see
@ZoeTillman -
I haven't updated in a hot minute (I will soon! I will!) but I also have a newsletter about the airport cases http://tinyletter.com/airports/archive …
-
If you're a layperson who wants to understand these cases better, some of these old newsletters will help.
- 8 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.