our founders wanted america to be a beacon on our coast and that beacon, at the end of the day, is not the quality of our sports teams or quality of our soil. that beacon ultimately is the majestic article iii. we ask the district court s ruling in joining this unconstitutional and unamerican executive order be affirmed. thank you, counsel. solicitor general wall, you had preserved a couple of minutes but we also went over time on the appellee s argument so we ll give you extra time if you would like it. thank you, judge gould. i ll try not to use all of it. i have a few brief points. the first is, i don t think washington can be taken to resolve the standard of review in this case. i think it s mandel. pretty close, though.
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
let s listen in. i just want to point out, i mean, if you really take their argument seriously, i think they re committed to the view that under 1182f, even if the president got actionable intelligence tomorrow that let s say a libyan national are attempting to enter the country but the president didn t know his identity to commit a terrorist act, they would say, the president can t suspend entry because that s a nationality based distinction. that would race constitutional concerns. courts have never read the statutes to conflict in that way. solicitor general wall, if i could interject a question on the merits here. the executive order sets out national security justifications. but how is a court to know if, in fact, it s a muslim ban in the guise of national security