Greedy Associates - The FindLaw Legal Lifestyle and Career Blog

Top 5 Screw Ups From the Immigration Ban Oral Arguments

The Ninth Circuit heard arguments yesterday over whether to stay the nationwide injunction against President Trump's recent immigration ban. Well, the Ninth Circuit and well over 137,000 others, who tuned in to listen to the oral arguments on CNN and the court's YouTube page. When it comes to appellate advocacy, that's Super Bowl-level viewership.

Those arguments were complex and impassioned, with a few occasional stumbles. Alright, some major stumbles. Of course, we're not one to throw stones. That's what Twitter's for. So we rounded up some of the legal twitterverse's best criticism. Here you go.

1. Don't Seek an Emergency Motion, Then Say You Didn't Have Time to Prepare

During oral arguments, DOJ attorney August Flentje faced a skeptical Ninth Circuit panel and still managed to hold his own. But his argument wasn't without some major struggles. When asked if the government had any evidence showing a real threat from immigrants coming from the nations impacted by the immigration ban, there wasn't much in the record Flentje could point to.

So he largely didn't, saying that "these proceedings have been moving very fast," and "we've been doing the best we can." That didn't earn him praise from Judge Michelle Friedland, who noted, "You appealed to us before you continued in the district court to develop the record, so why should we be hearing this now"?

2. Beware Smugness. And Zombie Judges.

Washington State's solicitor general, Noah G. Purcell, had a somewhat easier time of it during oral arguments, facing a bit less pushback from the three-judge panel. But some found his opening performance a bit ... overconfident.

On Twitter, Popehat complained that Purcell was "sounding smug," warning him that his smugness could inspire the judges to "eat your [expletive] heart right out of your chest. (We're declining to embed the tweet because of some naughty language that goes against our editorial guidelines. You can read the original here, if you dare.)


3. When the Judge Says Move On, Move On

That wasn't the only Purcell critique circulating through social media. The Washington attorney began his arguments by focusing on a procedural point -- that the federal government was appealing a temporary restraining order, rather than seeking mandamus relief.

Judge Richard Clifton, unhappy with this approach, barked that "You're free to use your time today as you want, but I suggest this might not be the topic that's most important." Purcell continued to address the issue nonetheless.

4. Don't Point Out That You're Blowing It

Full candor with the court is a lawyer's professional responsibility, but there are limits. You don't, for example, need to remind the judges that your argument doesn't seem to be working. But Flentje did just that. When arguing that the executive order was not a Muslim ban, he seemed to scramble. Then he admitted "I'm not sure I'm convincing the court."

Sure, Flentje's comment was a largely inconsequential aside but it made it in to every single paper covering the story.

5. Remember, Those Who Can't, Tweet.

On Twitter, it seems, everyone is an accomplished legal scholar and litigator.

But they're not. So, if all this Monday morning quarterbacking seems a bit overly critical, take it with a grain of salt. After all, any blowhard can throw stones on Twitter.

Bonus: The President Weighs In

And of course, there's one Twitter loudmouth who was sure to weigh in as well. Here's your president's take, ladies and gentlemen:

Related Resources: