make out an affirmative case? you could send it back, judge hawkins. plaintiffs haven t sought additional discovery here. we have a record and know what the statements were as a matter of fact. i think this court is as well placed as the district court to look at those statements and determine in the absence of testimony or credibility of determination, any of that, none of which went on below, are those enough to give us bad faith under den? no. i think in part that no one has set aside law basis of largely campaign remarks. it s dealing with a specific application, a standard to a
about that, both respect for the court and brarchl would require not reading them. i think as the district court adhere in the light most hostile and least favorable to the president. we did, you know you re right, we did receive a number of briefs in this case, number of amicus briefs. and judge hawkins reminded me of something that caught my eye in one of the briefs. that pa pass muster under your judgment today? no, judge paez. facially legitimate. that s what you say. this case is not coramatsu. if it were, i would not be standing here and the united states would not be defending it. what counsel said below page 116, supplemental efforts of record, it might well be constitutional in other context where you didn t have statements
situation from coramatsu. i don t think they ve pointed to a single case either under mandel that says we have a law that isn t religious gerry mandering. set aside what we believe the subjective motivations of the president or advisers who adopted and crafted the policy. that s a really remarkable holding, judge paez. is the bad faith determination under den the same thing as a purpose determination under lemon? i think it s a little different in the sense, judge hawkins. look, it s one sentence in the justice kennedy concurrence. i don t want to read too much into it because no court has ever applied it to actually find bad faith. i think what he has in mind there is pretext. he cites the portion of mandel,
and i think the problem they have with that, and the d.c. circuit said this, if you take government conduct directed toward others and reframe it as a message directed generally to all people aware of the government conduct, you ve both overturned and affect cases like valley forge and eviscerated on standing. this is at least two bridges beyond the catholic league case. isn t the doctor an imam, if i m not mistaken, of his local yes. it s direct to him, isn t it? well, the suspension of entry is just on the nationalists of the listed countries. how does his mother-in-law fit into this? she is a national of one of the listed countries. she can apply for a waiver. based on what they alleged, it s exceedingly likely she would get one. s who howe does that affect his harm? his claims are unright. if you disagreed with us on that
where they question what would happen if they put forward no justification at all. when the counselor officer either gives you no reason or gives you a reason that s obviously untrue on its face, pretext sort of finding, i think that s a little different from purpose. to say that the president and three members of his cabinet acted in bad faith pretextually and adopting an order and saying it s for national security purposes when it s not to go down that road you would need the strongest and clearest showing of bad faith. solicitor general wall, i would appreciate hearing a little more on the government s view on the statutory side of the case. and specifically what i have in mind is that there s an 1182, there s a need to find that entry would be detrimental to the united states. and so i have a question whether