Reposted by Neelika Jayawardane
I believe it entirely because he has no incentive to learn her story and theirs and pursue it to a just conclusion. In contrast, he had significant incentive to learn the names, majors, and social media profiles of any student who protested against israeli genocide or kotlikoff running them over.
![Beyond the statute, the President's inherent Article Il authority is plainly
violated by the district court's order. As a function of his inherent Article II authority
to protect the nation, the President may determine that TdA represents a significant
risk to the United States, that it is intertwined and advancing the interests of a foreign
government in a manner antithetical to the interests of the United States, and that its
members should be summarily removed from this country as part of that threat. The
exercise of authority in this case is firmly supported by longstanding precedent of
the Supreme Court. As that Court has repeatedly held, Article II confers upon the
President expansive authority over foreign affairs, national security, and
immigration. See Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588 (1952); United
13
USCA Case #25-5067 Document #2105928|
Filed: 03/15/2025
Page 15 of 18
States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936). And where, as here,
"the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress," i.e.,
50 U.S.C. § 21, coupled with the President's own Article Il powers over foreign
affairs and national security, "his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that
he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate." Youngstown Sheet
& Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring); see
Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1, 10 (2015) (similar).
If anything, this authority is heightened in the context presented by this case.
The Supreme Court has consistently noted that "[i]t is an accepted maxim of
international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in
sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners
within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions
as it may see fit to prescribe." Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659
(1892). Thus, "[w]hen Congress p…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:on5oeywiqx32fh2zau473wz6/bafkreib6a5zetp5iozkdrnrkg6wxjr3nmjrq5qtha4hfbew5ccdhzfb5l4)
