The time is set for argument in the case of sierra club versus trump. Take your seat. Nice to see you again. Thank you chief justice smith. Thomas byron from the department of justice on behalf of the government defended. With me is karen hecker office of general counsel. This case is about an internal transfer assignment among the ods accounts and the internal defense for itself didnt harm plaintiffs, they dont contend otherwise. They contend their interests were harmed by the subsequent downstream use of these funds for construction of border barriers and roads. But the transfer itself was authorized by a provision in the dod operations act and that provision was not designed to protect the kind of interests the plaintiffs assert, the kinds of recreational aesthetic and Environmental Concerns theyve raised. The requirements which is a universal requirement, whether theyre seeking review under the apa or under an equitable ultra viris claim, applies in any event and it asks this court
Parties requested in denied expedited hearing for this case before the us court of appeals for the ninth circuit. Following the Supreme Court order allowing the administration to temporarily begin construction using the funds. The time is set for argumentin the case of sierra clubversus trunk. Take your seat. Nice to see you again. Thank you chief justice smith. Thomas byron from the department of justice on behalf of the government defended. With me is karen hecker office of general counsel riyadh this case is about an internal transfer assignment among the ods accounts and the internal defense for itself didnt harm plaintiffs, they dont contend otherwise. They contend their interests were harmed by the subsequent downstream use of these funds for construction of border barriers and roads. But the transfer itself was authorized by a provision in the dod operations act and that provision was not designed to protect the kind of interests the plaintiffs assert, the kinds of recreational
Office of general counsel riyadh this case is about an internal transfer assignment among the ods accounts and the internal defense for itself didnt harm plaintiffs, they dont contend otherwise. They contend their interests were harmed by the subsequent downstream use of these funds for construction of border barriers and roads. But the transfer itself was authorized by a provision in the dod operations act and that provision was not designed to protect the kind of interests the plaintiffs assert, the kinds of recreational aesthetic and Environmental Concerns theyve raised. The requirements which is a universal requirement whether theyre seeking review under the apa or under an equitable ultra viris claim applies in any event and it asks this court to determine whether those kinds of interests that the plaintiffs are asserting are aligned with the objectives of congress purpose in enacting the statute they rely on. Here its actually intended to regulate the relationship between the dep
All persons having any manner or form of business before the Honorable United States Court of appeals for the Fourth Circuit nighadmonished to draw an and give their attention. God save the United States and this Honorable Court. Chief judge gregory, and may it please the court. If i can ask you before you get started to clarify what you view this scope of the luminary injunction to be. I have two questions. The District Court order and of the section 2c executive order, which suspended entry. During the District Court system 10 District Courts discussion of success on the merits, the District Court said underuspension of entry 1182 did not conflict with section 1152s barring discrimination in the issue of visas, of immigrant visas. Here is the question. Is it your view the District Court injunction enjoins the provision as entry well as the denial of visas, and does it apply to both immigrant and nonimmigrant visas . Honor, i think the answer to both of those questions, as i read the
All persons having any manner or form of business before the Honorable United States Court of appeals for the Fourth Circuit nighadmonished to draw an and give their attention. God save the United States and this Honorable Court. Chief judge gregory, and may it please the court. If i can ask you before you get started to clarify what you view this scope of the luminary injunction to be. I have two questions. The District Court order and of the section 2c executive order, which suspended entry. During the District Court system 10 District Courts discussion of success on the merits, the District Court said underuspension of entry 1182 did not conflict with section 1152s barring discrimination in the issue of visas, of immigrant visas. Here is the question. Is it your view the District Court injunction enjoins the provision as entry well as the denial of visas, and does it apply to both immigrant and nonimmigrant visas . Honor, i think the answer to both of those questions, as i read the