We Now Have The Three Judge Panel Opinion: In The Refoulement Cases -- Innovation Law Labs...

This is not the "big win" Trump claims it is; it is procedural only. And the dissent is right; the majority is in error. There will be an appeal -- but this is a narrow opinion, an opinion about the standards for an injunction.

In the mean time, Trump still must articulate why Flores doesn't apply to the would-be asylees in question. And it does. So this is mostly. . . a nothing-burger. And it says nothing about Trump's (unbuilt) wall, despite his false tweets -- of this morning.

More broadly, it is astonishing to me that Trump sends lawyers into courts in this land, to do his bidding -- and the only path to doing his bidding, given the brazen violations of well-settled law he aims for -- is to simply ignore the plain meaning of a statute, and argue that the government is free to treat any one, essentially any way it. . . pleases.

And it is disturbing to me, personally, that these ambitious -- and in many cases, poorly-educated -- lawyers. . . do just that. Liberty University Law is no training ground for the Ninth Circuit or the Supremes. Here's the business end of the dissent, which will ultimately prevail, when the merits are reached -- from an 11 page PDF dissent, just handed down:

. . . .The Government’s argument ignores the statutory text, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Jennings last year, and the opinion of its own Attorney General in Matter of M- S-, less than a month ago. The text of § 1225(b) tells us that § (b)(1) and § (b)(2) are separate and non overlapping categories. . . .

In Jennings, the Supreme Court last year told us explicitly that § (b)(1) and § (b)(2) applicants fall into separate and non overlapping categories. . . . The Government argues that returning § (b)(2), but not § (b)(1), applicants to a contiguous territory would have “the perverse effect of privileging aliens who attempt to obtain entry to the United States by fraud . . . over aliens who follow our laws.” Govt. Brief at 14. In its Reply Brief, the Government compares § (b)(1) and § (b)(2) applicants, characterizing § (b)(2) applicants as “less-culpable arriving aliens.” Govt. Reply Brief at 5. The Government has it exactly backwards. . . .

On to the Supremes; or back to the trial court, on the merits. We await Innovation Law's decision on how it will next proceed. Onward.

नमस्ते