7/ US: I would direct the court to page 42 of the transcript. The big issue is that this is a fast-moving case where there's a lot of operational natsec etc. at stake. "Oral statements are not injunctions." We do believe this is a good-faith interpretation of the court's written order.
Comments
US: Your honor, that's what the statute says. Def'n of "removal"
And we have arrived at the inevitable argument from DOJ: Trump can ignore court orders if he thinks they conflict with his power.
If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with what the gov't is arguing today, that the President has broad Article II powers that would permit it to deport people & there can be no judicial review, then literally no one is safe.
US: That isn't what we did, but also Article II