Bolton’s lawyers persuasively argue that the court lacks the authority to issue the requested injunction. They also show why his non-disclosure agreements are narrower than the government portrays, and how irregular his pre-clearance review process was.
Judge Lamberth will convene a hearing on June 19 at 1:00 p.m. to consider the government's petition for a temporary restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction. What are the relevant legal issues at play, and what questions should Lamberth ask the government?
The government faces many hurdles.
Editor's Note: This post also appears on Just Security.
The Case for the President’s Unilateral Authority to Conclude the Impending Iran Deal is Easy Because it Will (Likely) be a Nonbinding Agreement Under International Law
[Cross-posted at Just Security.]
In Marty’s post yesterday about the letter that 47 Senators sent to “the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he briefly addressed the quest
[Cross-Posted at Just Security]
Last week Congress approved, and the President signed, legislation that authorizes the Secretary of Defense (see section 149) to "provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian g
Military Detention of Non-Citizens and the Not-So-Negative Implications of the New Feinstein Amendment
As Wells and Steve noted last week, the Senate approved the “Feinstein Amendment” to the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Amendment, if enacted, would impose a clear statement rule for the detention of U.S.