Order Temporary Restraining News Today

Have long-term rights. governments -- that applies outside the boundaries of the u.s. and extends beyond people who have been -- who are in the u.s. or who have been in the u.s. thank you. >> thank you. mr. per sell, yes. may it place the court. state attorney noah per tel. it has been the judicial role to state what the -- that judicial law has never been important in recent memory than it been today. the court is requesting the court to reinstate the order without review and to through the cou...

He acting pursuant to delegation of authority. our position is no he acting contrary to what congress has said. every single person is harmed by the order, its important to consider how much deference to give to the conserexecutive on point. >> there been order in the past that treated people based on their nation. why should that suggest to us that the statute should be harm in way other than one youre advocating. >> all of those orders are been narrower than the one here. >> if you single out ...

>> the statutory ground would help us with regard to those seeking immigrant visa, is that correct? >> yes under, i think this is largely correct. 1152 speak of immigrant visa. there cannot discrimination in issuing those visa. >> thats not a way to avoid all constitutional claim because it wouldnt cover everyone. >> it would not allow you to avoid constitutional issues. we believe it is very strong claim that the order violates the ina. it goes to level of difference what old to executive. the ...

Opportunity to enter something it things is a preliminary order. issue an order preliminary injunction order. if you decide not to do this, if you decide to treat this preliminary ruling and stay motion i ask to issue an opinion that treetsz treats it like reprelimary ruling that -- the other side that the federal government argued they intent to seek immediate review if the court denies the stay. if the court it would be unfair to this court and the district court to have the federal government...

United states by favoring one group over another. equal protection clause because it relies on the ability to receive visit from friends and family what allowing others to receive those visits. the second point is as in den the u.s. citizen do have right it would not address their rights to limit it that way. defendant have not explained how they would implement the order they are proposing. their approach would travel and reentry by thousands of people who live here, work here who have to trave...

That executive order relied on congressional and administrative of 2015 and 2016 and its not an order that discriminates on the basis of religion there would be no valid of equal protection. >> could the president simply say in the order were not going to let any muslims in? >> thats not what the order does here. >> i know. >> the order relies on -- >> could he do that? >> thats not what the order does. >> would anybody be able to challenge that? >> thats not what the order

Decision about that. until they change the order to make that crystal clear, that claim, they cant say it doesnt apply to them, dont worry about it. thats half a million people in the united states who overnight at least according to government, lost their right to travel, to come in out of the country to visit that -- >> why she would limit reach to those people who have you a strong case for like the lpr, why should temporary restraining order reach beyond that why is it over broad? >> first o...

That even if it from anal ble t address all of our harms. >> in establishing claim should we apply lawson or lemon? >> we think the case is close to larson. in larson you have a law it did not mention religious domination by names, it would distinguish between the two. we have an order that on its face did not mention any dem denomination but theres report to some groups over others. thats exactly the case in larson. larson doesnt apply but thats not what larson itself said.

Judicially conniezble. across the country there are lawsuits where theres standing. there are people impacted by this order and there are cases across the country where we dont have type of standing argument. but in this case theres a lot of law that says states cant step into the shoes of their -- in this context. if we credit them, there would be no limitation on standing. in that context it doesnt make sense to extend jury ris predense to cover this point. it is over broad and should be immed...

Category of washington residents or people with visa, i suspect its a small fraction. >> first of all, we are at the pleading stage. we filed a complaint and a motion for tro. all of our -- thousands of people in washington, thousands more in minnesota who are from these country who are not yet citizens here. we know the way the order was interpreting, defendants originally interpreted the order and said that it covered lawful residents. we know theres permitted lawful residents in the u.s. they...