Will Bode

This is Kennedy often. Yeah. He didn't cast against his scrutiny, but he seemed to abandon them sometimes in a case where

This is Kennedy often. Yeah. He didn't cast against his scrutiny, but he seemed to abandon them sometimes in a case where

Fourth, whatever the tier of scrutiny, I'm persuaded the law before us seeks to serve a compelling interest, preventing a foreign country designated by Congress and the president as an adversary of our nation from harvesting vast troves of personal information about tens of millions of Americans. And finally, the law is also adequately tailored.

Fourth, whatever the tier of scrutiny, I'm persuaded the law before us seeks to serve a compelling interest, preventing a foreign country designated by Congress and the president as an adversary of our nation from harvesting vast troves of personal information about tens of millions of Americans. And finally, the law is also adequately tailored.

So he comes closer to saying, maybe we should uphold this under strict scrutiny. Although, again, he doesn't really want to get into labels. Yeah. I also like the last paragraph of his opinion. What's going to happen is unclear.

So he comes closer to saying, maybe we should uphold this under strict scrutiny. Although, again, he doesn't really want to get into labels. Yeah. I also like the last paragraph of his opinion. What's going to happen is unclear.

But then he just says, given just a handful of days after oral argument to issue an opinion, I cannot profess the kind of certainty I would like to have about the arguments on the record before us. All I can say is that at this time, under these constraints, the problem appears real and the response to it not unconstitutional. Which is just like a little dose of humility, which I like.

But then he just says, given just a handful of days after oral argument to issue an opinion, I cannot profess the kind of certainty I would like to have about the arguments on the record before us. All I can say is that at this time, under these constraints, the problem appears real and the response to it not unconstitutional. Which is just like a little dose of humility, which I like.

I like seeing that. I mean, I think it's appropriate in this. The question is to decide the case. They have to do their best. But I think just explicitly acknowledging or maybe giving a little bit of a thumb on the scale to upholding the law because... We don't have a lot of time, and we just gotta do the best we can, I think is a nice thing to.

I like seeing that. I mean, I think it's appropriate in this. The question is to decide the case. They have to do their best. But I think just explicitly acknowledging or maybe giving a little bit of a thumb on the scale to upholding the law because... We don't have a lot of time, and we just gotta do the best we can, I think is a nice thing to.

Embarrass the future. Yeah. Which I think is something the chief has used before. And then it says, the caution is heightened in these cases, given the expedited time allowed for our consideration. Our analysis must be understood to be narrowly focused in light of these circumstances. A little bit like the Bush versus Gore line.

Embarrass the future. Yeah. Which I think is something the chief has used before. And then it says, the caution is heightened in these cases, given the expedited time allowed for our consideration. Our analysis must be understood to be narrowly focused in light of these circumstances. A little bit like the Bush versus Gore line.

So we talked about Trump might file a brief and then it might even make sense for the court to call for it because you might want to know either in thinking about some of the stay factors or in thinking about how seriously to take these justifications.

So we talked about Trump might file a brief and then it might even make sense for the court to call for it because you might want to know either in thinking about some of the stay factors or in thinking about how seriously to take these justifications.

You might want to know in trying to either evaluate the stay factors or in trying to think about how seriously it takes with these justifications, whether President Trump agreed, whether or not he thought the security concerns were less serious and why, and things like that.

You might want to know in trying to either evaluate the stay factors or in trying to think about how seriously it takes with these justifications, whether President Trump agreed, whether or not he thought the security concerns were less serious and why, and things like that.

Trump filed a brief, I guess, in his personal capacity, authored by John Sauer, the person who represents Trump in his personal capacity, but his but announced to be the future nominee for Solicitor General of the United States on behalf of President Trump in support of neither party, which took no position on the merits, and whose one ask was that the court delay things until Trump took office.

Trump filed a brief, I guess, in his personal capacity, authored by John Sauer, the person who represents Trump in his personal capacity, but his but announced to be the future nominee for Solicitor General of the United States on behalf of President Trump in support of neither party, which took no position on the merits, and whose one ask was that the court delay things until Trump took office.

Yeah, like in the statement of the interest of the amicus curiae, the interest of the amicus curiae is that he's the most successful person on social media ever. That's not obviously wrong. Yeah. Right. It was criticized for its tone. It was criticized as well by folks like Steve Vladek for the fact that its request did not seem to be super well grounded in conventional legal sources.

Yeah, like in the statement of the interest of the amicus curiae, the interest of the amicus curiae is that he's the most successful person on social media ever. That's not obviously wrong. Yeah. Right. It was criticized for its tone. It was criticized as well by folks like Steve Vladek for the fact that its request did not seem to be super well grounded in conventional legal sources.