During last Wednesday’s oral argument at the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel Francisco said that the president’s travel ban excludes nationals of countries that fail to provide a “minimum baseline of information” needed to vet people entering the United States and that “the vast majority of the world” meets this “baseline.” Francisco described “reporting terrorism history information,” “reporting criminal history,” and “cooperat[ing] with us on a real-time basis” as part of that minimum
Sophia Brill is an associate in the litigation department at Morrison & Foerster LLP, in Washington D.C. She was previously an attorney in the National Security Division of the Department of Justice, where she worked on a range of legal policy and appellate matters. She is a graduate of Yale Law School.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
At the heart of the now-released “Nunes memo” is an accusation that the FBI and Department of Justice misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) when they sought orders to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. One quandary (among many) is how the FBI and Justice Department can defend themselves from these allegations without revealing yet more classified information.
The Trump administration recently unveiled a new version of the travel ban, and questions immediately arose concerning whether pending challenges to the previous order have become moot.
At 9:01, Judge Pohl takes the bench, authority-emanating robes and all. All parties are present, including the five accused. Prosecutor Robert Swann notes the continued presence of FBI personnel and an NYPD officer, who might eventually serve as witnesses. KSM lawyer David Nevin rises, in order to preserve his objection to those persons ever taking the stand.
Our first (and, as we'll soon discover, only) order of business is AE133, and who can hear what, of the defense’s confidential conversations with their clients.
But Nevin says he needs more time to investigate that issue. The logis