About to listen to arguments in the 4th Circuit in HIAS v. Trump, an appeal by DOJ of a court order preventing the implementation of Trump's executive order forbidding refugee resettlement unless states and localities have both opted in to the refugee resettlement program.
I wonder if the DOJ lawyers on all these horrible anti-refugee cases really are ok with the evil impact of the stuff they're defending or they are just treating it as doing their job?
A judge is pointing out that the order has an absurd unworkable construct. That doesn't sound good for the government.
Another judge is really laying into the government lawyer who says a local area doesn't really have a veto. The plain language is inconsistent.
Now the judge is telling the govt lawyer that she's tired of the govt lawyers saying executive orders don't say what they say on their face. THANK YOU. I'm tired too. Own up to what Trump wrote and his words are what they say.
Now, a judge is saying this basically a mess of an executive order and is impossible to implement.
Side note. I used to be on the board of @HIASrefugees, the plaintiff here, and they are an incredible organization doing excellent work on behalf of refugees around the world. It's always been one of my favorite charitable groups and well worth putting on your giving list.
@JB_Cox, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, is now up. @HIASrefugees is actually joined by a couple of other refugee organizations in suing the Trump Administration.
@JB_Cox @HIASrefugees @JB_Cox making the argument that's similar to many of the other cases challenging executive orders - that Trump doesn't get to defy the will of Congress. EOs must be consistent with what Congress intended.
@JB_Cox addressing the problem with limiting the injunction to the plaintiffs. Not all refugee organizations in the suit can help refugees across the country. Example of Alabama is given. Also, the Refugee Act says its provisions should be implemented uniformly.
I know I'm biased, but this is going very well for @jbcox. The judges' questions clearly show this. They're mainly asking questions to clarify the earlier ruling.
@JB_Cox That's the end of the arguments. Looking very good for the plaintiffs. Fingers crossed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
