Animus Revisited: DOJ Fails To Explain Change in Position on Relevance of Campaign Statements

6/23/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

DOJ can't distinguish a case from 1995 in which it took a diametrically opposed view on the relevance of campaign statements.

Jim Oleske

Lewis & Clark Law School

The Clarifying Memorandum Is Not A Reason For A Stay

6/21/17  //  Quick Reactions

An analysis of DOJ's latest filing at SCOTUS in the travel ban cases.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

Donald Trump’s Say-So is Not a Presidential “National Security Judgment”

6/21/17  //  Quick Reactions

Analysis of DOJ's filing at SCOTUS today in the travel ban cases.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

The President’s Clarifying Memorandum And The Amicus Brief About Animus

6/20/17  //  Commentary

The President’s clarifying memorandum undercuts the legitimate rationale the executive order and DOJ had offered for the entry ban. An amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court explains why that matters.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

Some Thoughts on the Government’s Latest Filing in the Entry Ban Cases

6/19/17  //  Commentary

Here I offer three quick reactions to the government’s latest filing in the Ninth Circuit case—the first two on questions concerning what the Court should do now with the government’s applications, and the third with respect to the merits of the statutory ultra vires argument on which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit relied.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

Opposing Trump's Muslim Ban at the Supreme Court

6/16/17  //  Quick Reactions

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to lift the stay preventing him from implementing his travel ban. Nelson Tebbe, Micah Schwartzman and I, along with a large group of constitutional law scholars, have filed a brief opposing Trump's motion.

Corey Brettschneider

Brown University

How the President’s Clarifying Memorandum Destroys the Case for the Entry Ban

6/15/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The President's "clarifying" memorandum undermines the facial legitimacy of the entry ban, and the government's stated purposes for the entry ban.

Take Care

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

The President Resuscitates the Entry Ban: Where Should the Supreme Court Go From Here?

6/15/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

In this post I explain why, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision on Monday, there’s no good reason for the Supreme Court to grant any of the government’s petitions or applications.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

See You In Court: Ninth Circuit Round 2

6/12/17  //  Quick Reactions

A quick recap of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Hawaii v. Trump with thoughts about what it portends for the Supreme Court.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

The Government’s Vanishing National Security Rationale (aka Round 10000 In The Incompetence Versus Malevolence Debate)

6/8/17  //  Commentary

The government’s litigation strategy in the travel ban litigation undermines the purported national security rationale for the entry ban.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

The Travel Ban's Non-Urgency, In Pictures

6/7/17  //  Commentary

The Administration's unhurried pace in defending its revised travel ban belies its representations of urgency to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Amir Ali

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center

The Basic Error In Texas’s Amicus Brief In The Travel Ban Case (aka Youngstown Zone Zero Redux)

6/7/17  //  Commentary

Texas’s Amicus Brief Makes An Argument That Is So Obviously Wrong Some People Thought It Was Not Worth Responding To

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

Ian Samuel

Harvard Law School

Mootness and Munsingwear in the Travel Ban Litigation

6/6/17  //  Commentary

A Munsingwear vacatur could be an intriguing compromise in the travel ban case that just might generate consensus on the Supreme Court. It would let the Justices avoid wading into treacherous constitutional waters. But it would also avoid giving the impression that the Court approved of a nationwide injunction about which the conservative Justices will, I suspect, have serious concerns.

Daniel Epps

Washington University Law School

Trump Is Not Playing Ten-Dimensional Chess; He's Not Even Playing Checkers; He's Barely Playing Peekaboo

6/6/17  //  Commentary

Let's explore the hypothesis that Trump is deliberately sabotaging the already weak case for sustaining the travel ban. This is extremely unlikely. As they say in medical school, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. The most obvious explanation--Trump is an ignorant racist with no impulse control--should dominate more intricate theories.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

Tweetstorm Round Deux

6/5/17  //  Commentary

The President's latest statements on Twitter undermine DOJ's defense of the entry ban, and continue the President's efforts to blame everyone (including DOJ and the courts) but himself.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School