Politics
Pros Call For ACLU Lawyer’s Head After Dismal Performance On Trump Immigration Appeal
No featured image available
Legal observers across the ideological spectrum panned the performance of ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat during arguments before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday.
At one juncture, for instance, Jadwat conceded that the order would be lawful if it had been issued by another president who had not made inflammatory comments about Islam. Moments later, he contradicted himself and said the order was facially unlawful. Jadwat, a seasoned advocate and law professor who leads the ACLU’s immigrants rights project, represents a coalition of civil rights groups challenging President Donald Trump’s second executive order on refugees and migrants.
As a general matter, arguing before a federal appeals court is a daunting task, made all the more difficult when facing a panel of 13. As happened Monday, judges frequently interrupt one another, or the lawyers arguing before them, and can dramatically shift the tenor and trajectory of an argument with a single question. What’s more, two of the appointees on Monday’s panel, Judges Paul Niemeyer and Dennis Shedd, are famously rigorous inquisitors. The case’s high public profile also makes the argument more difficult.
All things considered, some sympathy for Jadwat is certainly warranted. Nevertheless, commentators noted Jadwat struggled to answer predictable questions, made contradictory statements, and appeared to irritate judges otherwise sympathetic to his arguments.
Steve Mazie, Newsweek’s Supreme Court correspondent, suggested advocates of the refugee order would be buoyed by Jadwat’s performance.
Donald Trump is listening to the ACLU lawyer in travel-ban case face-plant right now — sitting back, grinning, drinking beer.
— Steven Mazie (@stevenmazie) May 8, 2017
Ian Milhiser, justice editor at ThinkProgress, said Jadwat appeared unprepared to answer predictable questions which are essential to forming the court’s opinion.
Well, the Muslim ban argument in the Fourth Circuit is over. Trump's almost certain to lose, but oof. The ACLU needs to send better lawyers.
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) May 8, 2017
@DLind I'm so angry at the ACLU for sending someone so unprepared when they could have gotten nearly any lawyer in America to argue pro bono.
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) May 8, 2017
Leah Litman, a law professor at UC Irvine School of Law and frequent contributor to Take Care, expressed hope that the ACLU would select a new advocate as the case proceeds.
@stevenmazie Agreed. These are questions that everyone has been asking. He is annoying judges who were sympathetic.
— Leah Litman (@LeahLitman) May 8, 2017
@AndyGrewal @RMFifthCircuit Hopefully they will–with a new attorney arguing for IRAP!
— Leah Litman (@LeahLitman) May 8, 2017
Rob Rosborough, a New York-based appeals practitioner following the case, said one could be left with the impression that the ACLU had lost in the lower court.
Yikes, it's only getting worse. If you didn't know anything about the case, you'd think he lost below.
— Rob Rosborough (@NYSAppeals) May 8, 2017
Cornell Dolan, P.C., a Boston litigation boutique, called him “stammering” and “unconvincing.”
@NYSAppeals The judges are piling on him, frustrated at lack of straight answers. He is stammering, very unconvincing.
— Cornell Dolan, P.C. (@cornelldolanpc) May 8, 2017
An opinion is unlikely in the coming days.
Send tips to [email protected]..
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].