Justice Elena Kagan

You obviously put a lot of weight on subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky.

We've heard a lot of talk about Wong Kim Ark, and you dismiss the use of the word domicile in it.

It appears in the opinion 20 different times.

Isn't it at least something to be concerned about to say that...

discussed 20 different times and has that significant role in the opinion that you can just dismiss it as irrelevant?

Here's what else you need to know today.

As we speak this evening, it's been just one month since the United States military began Operation Epic Fury, targeting the world's number one state sponsor of terror.

In these past four weeks, our armed forces have delivered swift, decisive, overwhelming victories on the battlefield.

When this conflict is over, the Strait will open up naturally.

It'll just open up naturally.

They're going to want to be here.

So, you know, let's say that we're an individual person even, let's say it wasn't a class, and goes up and gets a ruling from the Second Circuit that the EO is illegal. Does the government commit to not applying its EO in the entire Second Circuit?

So, you know, let's say that we're an individual person even, let's say it wasn't a class, and goes up and gets a ruling from the Second Circuit that the EO is illegal. Does the government commit to not applying its EO in the entire Second Circuit?

Yes, that is generally your practice.

Yes, that is generally your practice.

I mean, why would you take the substantive question to us? You're losing a bunch of cases. This guy over here, this woman over here, you know, they'll have to be treated as citizens, but nobody else will. Why would you ever take this case to us?

I mean, why would you take the substantive question to us? You're losing a bunch of cases. This guy over here, this woman over here, you know, they'll have to be treated as citizens, but nobody else will. Why would you ever take this case to us?

The real brunt of my question is in a case like this, the government has no incentive to bring this case to the Supreme Court because it's not really losing anything. It's losing a lot of individual cases which still allow it to enforce its CEO against the vast majority of people to whom it applies.

The real brunt of my question is in a case like this, the government has no incentive to bring this case to the Supreme Court because it's not really losing anything. It's losing a lot of individual cases which still allow it to enforce its CEO against the vast majority of people to whom it applies.