"So what will the Supreme Court do when confronted by (1) the president’s invocation of a broadly worded statute, (2) to enact a scattershot, arguably racialized form of border control, (3) where there are colorable arguments that the president has not satisfied the statute’s triggers for extraordinary action, and (4) in any case, the executive’s own words and data show that the policy is unwarranted?
Here’s an answer using only a few choice quotes from the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the revised and slightly narrowed travel ban: It would start by observing that the statutory basis for the wall “exudes deference to the president in every clause.” It would build on this by asserting that “the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals” is a “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”
Then the kicker: If the policy’s challengers point to the president’s own statements on Friday, or his own past conduct in the context of budget negotiations to show that there is no border emergency, or that the real motive at work is to fulfill a campaign promise with 2020 in mind, the court would then remind them, again quoting the travel ban decision, that it is not “the statements of a particular president,” but rather “the authority of the presidency itself” that is at issue. In effect, the court here said that it would refuse to take Trump at his word, and instead ignore evidence of either flawed motive or insufficient justifications. English law had a Latin maxim that nicely captures the court’s thought here: “rex non potest peccare,” or the king can do no wrong.
Under this doctrine, the fact that the president’s aim of circumventing Congress’ control of appropriations is arguably unconstitutional matters no more than the president’s expressions of animus mattered in the travel ban case." Politico
The author, a law professor, argues against his own inclination that the case has already been decided in favor of the legal and constitutional authority of the presidency. IMO he is right.
Xavier (Zorro) Becerra, the Attorney General of California ought to know that is true. He is a highly educated (scholarships for excellence) lawyer trained in the best of schools, to understand that one must know "when to hold'em, and when to fold'em, know when to walk away, know when to run."
What the Trump haters are doing with their lawsuit in this matter is to build Trump up as a winner, a winner who can beat them at their own game in the courts. The Deplorables want them beaten, beaten and humiliated. Politically uncommitted Deplorables will rally to his side to participate in that humiliation.
Trump will be looking for other legal fields on which to fight them. The issue of California's failed high speed rail from San Francisco to Los Angeles and massive funding that the federal government provided for that will be another chance to bludgeon Newsom and Becerra. pl