Am gonna tune in to arguments in 4th circuit today on case about the US refugee resettlement program.
Listen here, …
For more on the case: https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports/2020/6/26/four-former-us-officials-defend-the-us-refugee-admissions-program

Wow, the government attorney is getting pummeled.

One of the judges is sick of the government coming into court and claiming that Executive Orders don't actually mean what they say, because, if they did, they would be indefensible.

"Nobody thought this through, and it's so impractical," one judge says of the EO. So the government says, it doesn't really mean what it says.

Woomp there it is. Government admits "The statute does not refer to the word consent." But then says that it does allow it.

In contrast, IRAP attorney was not interrupted with a question for a long while. And has a good answer when asked--all about how the EO contradicts statute even beyond the question of consent/veto.

Good that other resettlement agencies are not parties-- helps on the issue of scope of injunction.

One judge finally notes to government attorney that people choose the language in executive orders with great care and “they did not write it the way you are defending it.”

To that, the govt says, the consents are just one factor the Sec of State considers and limiting them in any way would be an unlawful limit of his discretion. On what actual
previous State Dept. officials think of that, please see amicus brief linked to in 1st post in this thread