well, your honor, we think we prevail under either test but we think this case is closer to larson because in larson, what you had was a facially neutral law. it didn t not mention religious domination by name but it did focus on religious groups and the result of it was to distinguish between them in a way that favored some and not others. and that s exactly what we have here. we have an order that on its face doesn t mention any denomination, but that is we have alleged and there s strong evidence already to support is intended to favor some religious groups over others and that is that is exactly the situation in larson. now i know the other side is saying if it doesn t mention a particular denomination on the face of the document, that isn t what larson said. in larson, the law did not mention a denomination. again, we also think we prevail under the lemon test which is explained in some detail in our district court briefing. we do not unfortunately have space to describe tha
that s the number i ve been using, meant to amend or partially repeal 1182? well, your honor, two points. number one, as you point out, there have not been cases about those issues so there s not while there may have been a much narrower practice than this, i agree there has been some practice to that effect much narrower than here. but again, every one of those examples involved much more narrow tailoring than we have here and also 1182 but the problem is the same. can you treat people based on the nation they come from? and foreign policy or foreign affairs do all the time. we keep people from north korea differently than we treat people from france. so i have trouble understanding your interpretation of 1152 as prohibiting what seems to be common place in foreign affairs. weyour honor, 1182 itself includes a number of exceptions
that this court could review. i guess i d ask if you decide not to do that, if you decide to treat this as a preliminary injunction ruling and a stay motion, i d ask you to issue an opinion that treats it like a preliminary injunction ruling and that gives it the sort of consideration that you would want that reviewed with because the other side, the federal government has already made very clear they intend to seek immediate review if this court denies the stay. and of course it would be unfair to this court and to the district court to have the federal government try to take to the u.s. supreme court, you know, an order that was explicitly framed as a temporary restraining order and that the judge understandably issued urgently if we were to issue a reasoned opinion, would that take care of this concern or is there a concern beyond that? i think that would address much of the concern, your honor. i would ask that you do either one or the other. i do think it would be better
you. well your honor, what i mean is we have assessed we have alleged do i have to believe everything you allege and say that must be right? that s not the standard. you ve actually supported these allegations with exhibits, haven t you? we have supported in of our allegations with exhibits, yes, judge friedland, we have. and i do think that s important we have presented an enormous out of evidence, especially considering again that the time between our filing our complaint was filed a week ago monday together with the temporary restraining order motion, together with the declarations, so unlike cases we had extraordinarily little opportunity to gather and present in evidence the district court. you fault ted the government for exactly the same thing. don t tell us you need more time. you sought the temporary restraining order.
what irreparable harm is and still no clear factual claims or evidentiary claims of what that irreparable harm would be from a stay, and, in fact, it was the executive order, itself, that caused irreparable harm to our states, to our residents and to many other states and people as described in the many briefs that have been filed. of course, we believe the federal government has shown no irreparable harm from reinstating the status quo prior to the executive order. what s the harm to the state of washington? from the executive order? well, we detailed a number of irreparable harms, your honor. we had students and faculty at state universities who were stranded overseas. we had families that were separated. we had we had longtime residents who could not travel overseas to visit their families without knowing that they would be able to come back. we had lost tax revenue.