SEE ALSO: Trump’s Travel Ban Suffers New Loss in Ninth Circuit

Hawaii’s brief argued that the Trump administration’s executive order is religious discrimination and that it exceeds the president’s statutory authority.

The president’s recent tweets—specifically discussing what he declared to be a “travel ban” and questioning the Justice Department’s lawyering in the case—have been viewed by many legal scholars and others as undermining the government’s legal arguments that the executive order is not any ban.

As The National Law Journal reported recently: “Twitter itself—but not a tweet—has only been cited once in a Supreme Court case. In Dietz v. Bouldin, a 2016 case on recalling jurors, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority, “Immediately after discharge, a juror could text something about the case to a spouse, research an aspect of the evidence on Google, or read reactions to a verdict on Twitter.”

Katyal first listed the president’s campaign statements and statements shortly after his inauguration as evidence that religious discrimination triggered the first executive order. He then zeroed in on the president’s recent tweets to show the same intent is behind the second executive order.

“On June 5, 2017, days after the government filed its stay application in this court, President Trump echoed these sentiments in a series of Twitter posts championing the ‘original Travel Ban’,” Katyal wrote. “He decried how the “Justice Dep[artment]” had submitted a ‘watered down, politically correct version * * * to S.C.’ He urged the Justice Department to seek ‘an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel ban before the Supreme Court,’ and to ‘seek [a] much tougher version.’ Finally, he claimed that ‘[t]he courts are slow and political,” but that his Administration was already ‘EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S.’”

A response also will be filed Monday to the government’s request that the justices lift an injunction issued by a Virginia federal judge blocking the executive order. That ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in May. The government also is seeking full review by the high court of the Fourth Circuit’s decision.

There is no timetable yet for when the justices will act on the government’s two stay requests and its petition for review.

Copyright National Law Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]