I’m no lawyer, but I don’t believe the Administration has to submit a brief to the 9th — especially if they don’t care for the 9th to hear it en banc. As far as wanting to litigate it back in the district with Robart, I don’t see why they would. Robart has shown that he is not a judge who makes decisions based on the law and the Constitution. His decision was purely political with no reference to the law. Also, all the good arguments I’ve read that cited precedent re standing state that neither Wash or Min had standing to bring the suit since they were not the aggrieved parties, yet Robat granted them standing. There is no reason to believe this leftist judge would all of the sudden “see the light” and it would just be more wasted time as migrants flood our country.
You may be quite right.
I still feel Pres Trump will want to defend his case before the very judge that improperly and with no stated legal reasons stayed his exec order. Robard made no arguments that Pres Trump did not have the authority to issues his order. He only stated his feelings and beliefs with no legal reasons at all.
So why go back? To list with clarity the authority invested in the president by prior SC rulings and by the Congress themselves that codified the SC rulings into law in 1952, a law that is still current. Then, if Robart continues to rule for his stay he will have to list his actual legal reasons - of which he has none, I feel.
With such a faulty ruling in hand the President, if he chooses, can then appeal it to the SC and it should be a certain win. And all this occurs very high profile proceedings so the country gets a lesson in the law instead of the balderdash being peddled by the leftists and the media.
That’s how I see it. They actually want to get Robart “on the record” so to speak from a legal standpoint.