Latest in Executive Order
This post is the fourth part of a five-part series on the Fourth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in IRAP v. Trump. Part I analyzed how the court considered pre- and post-inauguration statements.
This post is the third part of a five-part series on the Fourth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in IRAP v. Trump. Part I analyzed how the court considered pre- and post-inauguration statements.
This is the second part of a five-part series on the Fourth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in IRAP v. Trump. Part I analyzed the majority’s assessment of Trump and associates’ pre- and post-inauguration statements. This part will analyze how the court marshals the Supreme Court’s precedents concerning standing, the reviewability of immigration decisions, and the Establishment Clause.
Reading the Fourth Circuit’s en banc opinion in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, one would think the court’s analysis amounts to routine application of well-settled precedent. But a close examination reveals the decision to be anything but.
The Establishment Clause took center stage in Monday’s 10-3 Fourth Circuit decision in International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) v. Trump upholding a Maryland district court’s preliminary injunction against President Trump’s revised Refugee EO.
During oral arguments in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, judges attempted to draw analogies between President Trump's travel ban and Korematsu v. United States (1944).
In arguments before the Fourth Circuit last week and the Ninth Circuit yesterday, a new phase of the litigation opened up on President Trump's travel ban. The government’s arguments have become sharper, the judges have become more informed, and the weaknesses of the challengers’ case have been laid bare.
The Ninth Circuit’s argument yesterday on President Trump’s revised Refugee EO in Hawaii v. Trump took a novel turn: Judges Gould, Hawkins, and Paez focused on what the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) actually says. Hearing the government’s appeal of a Hawaii district court’s preliminary injunction against the EO, the panel was thoughtful and discerning on both the INA and the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, the parties’ positions were each too extreme to provide the court with optimal guidance.
Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall and former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal faced off yesterday before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit on the legality of President Trump’s revised March 6 travel ban order.
Lawfare and others have spent an enormous amount of time discussing the intricacies of the Vulnerabilities Equities Process (VEP). Many policy conferences have been dedicated to the matter, and an even greater number of Twitter debates. The topic, in its own way, serves as a proxy for what one thinks of broader issues in information security and signals intelligence.
Today’s so-called WannaCry ransomware attack reveals the stakes, but more importantly the limits, of that debate.