Dinn Case News Today

You said it such an obvious point, why would there be such a loud caucus against nationalism, against national unity? >> i think theres two things going on, when you look at the president of france, he likes the idea of trans nationalism, trying to replace the idea of nationalism with the idea of regional nationalism. and you look at the united states, the people that say that nationalism is a bad thing orad racist think they jut arent necessarily proud of the country that the united statesit is...

>> well, your honor, we think we prevail under either test but we think this case is closer to larson because in larson, what you had was a facially neutral law. it didnt not mention religious domination by name but it did focus on religious groups and the result of it was to distinguish between them in a way that favored some and not others. and thats exactly what we have here. we have an order that on its face doesnt mention any denomination, but that is -- we have alleged and theres strong ev...

Cant challenge visa denials or revocations. the claims that the state -- >> sure they can. >> -- is bringing are -- >> sure they can. look, the whole point of the dinn case was dinn, himself, rather, dinns husband couldnt challenge but she could. and three justices of the court were prepared to throw it out at the first step, but the other six justices were not. they took up the claim. why isnt the state of washington in a comparable position, say as the proprietor of the stay universities, havi...

Presidents national security judgment about the level of risk and weve been talking about the level of risk that is acceptable. as soon as were having that discussion, it should be acknowledged that if the president is the official that is charged with making those judgments. id also like to -- >> so where we -- >> -- talk briefly -- >> are you arguing then the presidents decision in that regard is unreviewable? >> the -- yes. the -- what we -- there are obviously constitutional limitations, but...

Apply to them, so dont worry about it. thats half a million people who are in the united states who overnight at least according to government initially lost their right to travel, to come in and out of the country, to visit their relatives. several people -- >> why shouldnt we limit the order, the temporary restraining order, reached to those people who youve got a strong case for like the lprs? why should the temporary restraining order reach beyond that? that seems to be the governments princ...

Washington cant bring a suit on behalf of its citizens in this context and -- >> why -- let me interrupt you for a second there. theres some talk in the supreme court cases of quasi sovereign interests and, for instance, a state might have an interest in clean air. and when it sues to protect its air, its necessarily acting for its citizens. the state, itself, cant smell air. it cant see air. it has to be acting on behalf of its citizens when it brings a case like that. yet, there seems to be au...

Doesnt have a judicially c connizable or protected -- >> thats exactly the same case that was raised in kerry versus dinn and the majority of the court didnt say that. that was an immigration case. mandel was an immigration case both involving visa denials. >> we have to -- sure. then we have to talk about what the constitutional interests of the state entity is. its well established that theres no due process -- >> let me stop you there. why is it limited to -- why is it limited to the stay ent...

>> your honor, im sorry. i havent thought -- as i said, i had not done that math before the argument. i have not thought about the case in those terms because -- >> let me switch to the other part of it. i mean, do you deny that, in fact, there is concern about people coming from those countries separate and apart from what their religion might be because as congress and the previous administration have concluded, those countries are a concern from a terrorist perspective? >> your honor, congres...

There are people impacted by this order and there are cases across the country where we dont have these type of standing arguments. in this case, theres a lot of law that says states cant step into the shoes of their citizens in this context. we have the proprietary interests are for diffuse and if we credit them, there would be no limitation on standings. i think in that context it doesnt make sense to extend standing jurisprudence to cover this kind of situation. im not sure im convincing the ...

Is that this case is different from mandell and dinn and in an important way in that the federal actions here effect longtime residents who have been here and thats not all -- the establishment clause violation effects everyone in a sense. in a sense it -- well, as the court knows, the case law is quite clear that establishment clause violations on their own show irreparable injury and we, of course, believe that that claim is very strong. so just on the merits, the state has shown a strong like...