personal attorney and the network knowingly spread misinformation about they want, including falsehoods that they logged illegal ballots for joe biden in the 2020 election. the women say that these lies have led to harassment and death threats. they sued the far right wing website, the gateway pundit, earlier this month for false statements about them. lawsuits against trump allies and media outlets who have helped to push the big lie are making some headway in court. just over a week ago, a judge declined to dismiss a lawsuit by dominion voting systems against fox news for pushing the big lie there. we re back with kim atkins stohr and tim o brien. kim, i ve said this before, that it s too bad the country doesn t have standing to sue against the big lie, but it is fascinating that some of these businesses and news organizations do face legal exposure. what do you think when you watch these cases? yeah, the defamation approach is really interesting because it s one way that we have s
for donald trump in this lawsuit. he lost at the first level. that s what we call the district court. the judge there famously said, presidents are not kings and plaintiff is not president. meaning, executive privilege does not apply here, and even if it did, a former president, like donald trump, doesn t have standing to raise it. now next up we re going to have argument in the court of appeals. that argument is going to happen on tuesday, november 30th. if you look at the arguments there and you look at the three judges who are going to be sitting on that case, i think it s very, very likely we get the same result, donald trump loses, committee wins. the big question will be, will the supreme court take the case? trump if he loses certainly will try to get the case to the supreme court. now nobody has a right to get a case to the supreme court. it s up to them. you need four of the nine justices to say, we will take that case. on the one hand, the supreme court justices try to stay o
argument about the statute, judge gould, about 1182, then it would, i think, affirm the district court s injunction as a whole. it s true 1152, nationality based discrimination, to up hold the junction as a whole, to read nonimmigrant visas as well as judge hawkins was illustrating. that is our reading. obviously there could be a question about that. with respect to the standing of refugees, both plaintiffs, we think, have standing. hawaii has standing because in washington versus trump, the court actually found that the state of washington had standing. indeed even on the refugee claims, which are before the court, and here we have identified, you know, indeed the government has pointed to three refugees that have come in this year in 2017. the district court proceedings
the state doesn t have standing, all of these were things raised and decided by washington versus trump. if i could did the washington panel decide the application of mandel on the merits or simply say that courts have jurisdiction to review such things? it resolved the question of whether the mandel standard you think our panel is bound by that? i do. if i could read to you the language from washington versus trump, this is found page 1162. the government cites mandel for the proposition that, quote, when the executive exercise immigration authority on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the court also not look beyond that. apply that this standard governs judicial review executive exercises of immigration authority. in fact, the mandel standard applies only to issue or deny individual visa. present case is not about that application of a specifically
circuit court to act quickly to issue its decision you can bet that the losing side will want to appeal, which means it could go to the supreme court fairly quickly. joining us now to speak about the state s argument. bob ferguson is joining us again. i want to get your initial reaction to the argument. no surprise, they re repeating arguments they made before judge robart, that he was not persuaded by. there s nothing in the filing i ve seen. i only had a chance to look at it quickly, there s nothing in there that s particularly surprising. the argument that your state doesn t have standing to be bringing this to court. what do you say? that s central to the argument for judge robart, we