During oral arguments in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, judges attempted to draw analogies between President Trump's travel ban and Korematsu v. United States (1944). The comparison supports the government’s argument.
Josh Blackman is an Associate Professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, and the author of Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, and Executive Power.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
In arguments before the Fourth Circuit last week and the Ninth Circuit yesterday, a new phase of the litigation opened up on President Trump's travel ban. The government’s arguments have become sharper, the judges have become more informed, and the weaknesses of the challengers’ case have been laid bare.
Yesterday's argument in IRAP v. Trump offers a preview of the sorts of arguments that a majority of the Justices will likely find far more compelling than the majority of the Fourth Circuit.
Josh Blackman analyzes how President Trump's new immigration order fares under the Establishment Clause.
Josh Blackman assesses how the new immigration executive order comports with the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause.
An analysis of whether the new order violates the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as an examination of the broader separation-of-powers framework.
The second part of a two-part essay examining the reasoning in the Ninth Circuit’s per curiam opinion and concluding that, despite its well-meaning intentions, the opinion is a comedy of errors.