You can listen live.  So far the Administration’s attorney is having a rough time of it, but that’s not necessarily dispositive of the ultimate results.

Best argument so far from the Trump attorney is that Washington State lacks standing.  The court seems unconvinced that the Trump decision is unreviewable.

Hmmm.  They’re not coming off as convinced by the standing issue either.

He couldn’t answer whether a blanket Muslim ban would be reviewable.  He says he doesn’t want to answer that, but you really want to answer the questions the judges ask you.  He should simply state, “No, it wouldn’t be reviewable.”

He’s now arguing that the injunction is overbroad.  Let’s see if he gets traction there, but I think he’s losing.  So does he.

They’re being kind of hard on the state’s attorney as well (guy sounds like Al Franken), but only on procedural issues so far.

The State attorney is having a hard time citing his own evidence of religious animous – just got help from the female judge.  The other judge is giving him a hard time.  There may be a split decision.  I don’t know why he doesn’t have a list of his exhibits right with him.  Maybe he didn’t think they would ask him about it, but that seems silly.

Well, it’s hard to know how they’re going to rule, but it looks like they’re going to affirm the TRO, but limit its scope to those with connections to Washington State.  If so, then expect California and a dozen or so other states to file their own suits.