As the courts continue to rule against the Trump administration's travel ban, most recently in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, the language they use suggests the development of a new and less deferential jurisprudence for a new kind of presidency.
Latest in IRAP v. Trump
The Justice Department has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, requesting that the Supreme Court review the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upholding the nationwide preliminary injunction against a key section of the travel ban. The petition is available in full below, along with stay applications filed by the government in both IRAP and Hawaii v. Trump, which is currently before the Ninth Circuit.
Josh Blackman offers his take on the concurring opinions in IRAP v. Trump.
The Fourth Circuit's curious citation of Ex parte Milligan in the travel ban case is a reflection of a kind of judicial supremacy and constitutional universalism that is very attractive today among left-leaning lawyers, judges, and legal academics—but that's not what Milligan says.
Analysis of IRAP v. Trump Part II: The Fourth Circuit’s Misuse of Mandel, Din, Lemon, and Town of Greece
A look at the majority's analysis of standing, the reviewability of immigration decisions, and the Establishment Clause.
The Fourth Circuit Argument on the Refugee EO: Second-Guessing the President or Safeguarding Individual Rights?
Yesterday's argument placed two opposition options before the Fourth Circuit (1) narrowly construe the President’s authority and read Trump’s comments in the worst possible light, or (2) cultivate a measure of deference.
An en banc Fourth Circuit hears argument on Executive Order 13,780.