The transcript of the travel-ban oral argument is now public, and while all the standard caveats apply regarding predicting case outcomes from oral arguments, it’s safe to say the Trump administration feels more confident today than its legal opponents. I agree with SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe — the administration may well win a “solid majority,” possibly even pulling in Justices Kagan and Breyer.
I must confess, however, that Hawaii’s attorney, Neal Katyal, demonstrated why he’s an outstanding Supreme Court advocate. He did his dead-level best to transform the legal equivalent of a sow’s ear into a silk purse by keeping the bulk of his argument focused on the relevant statutes, focusing not just on congressional prohibitions against nationality-based immigration bans but also on previous congressional responses to state sponsors of terror.
But even the best advocates can labor to explain away controlling law, and the simple fact remains that Congress delegated breathtaking authority to the president. Here’s the relevant language: —>
Read the rest from David French HERE and follow link below to a related story:
Supreme Court shows support for President Trump’s immigration travel ban
If you like what you see, please “Like” us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
Comments are closed.