Opening Statement: Trump

I. Paragraph one (30 seconds)-- sell Jury on theme

Ladies and gentleman of the Jury, we all have the honor to live in the United States. In this

beautiful country we are sold on the American dream of safety, freedom, and happiness. In fact,

many of us seem to be living that very dream. That very dream which is made possible because

our nation puts our safety first. . But what happens to that same American dream, that dream of

safety, freedom, and happiness, when malicious acts of terror threaten the lives of Americans

everyday? What happens when the foremost aspect of American life, safety, crumbles under the

weight of foreign terror. We don't want that American dream to die and that is why we make our

case about the protection of American lives

II. Introduce client--

Jury, I want you to meet my client, President Donald J. Trump, the leader of the United States of

America. Since his campaign, President Trump has prioritized the protection of American lives

against the threat of foreign terror. When our President issued Executive Order 13780 on March

9th 2017, that is exactly what he was doing. Protecting American Lives. Shortly afterwards, it

was revised in accordance to the Ninth Circuit Court’s concerns. On September 24, 2017

President Donald Trump signed executive order 13780 , which suspended entry for 90 to 120

days of foreigners from 7 countries identified as having high terrorist risks by Congress and the

Executive.

III. 3-4 Paragraphs on story of case (NO ARGUMENTS--must maintain credibility)

(introduce witnesses here)

But Hawaii refuses follow the President’s orders to protect the lives of the innocent. Hawaii

took the executive order to court and the district judge ruled in favor of Hawaii, and against the

safety of millions of Americans, putting the order on hold. .. It is here, in the Supreme Court,

where the decision will finally be made. How important is the protection of our country, of our

people?

To further prove the Jury, the court brings in John Kelly- White House Chief of Staff and

Trump’s previous Secretary of Homeland security, James Mattis-US Secretary of Defense, John

Malcolm-law professor and VP for the institute of constitutional government, John Taylor- law

professor that specializes in first amendment rights, Shmuel Bar an expert and researcher in

middle eastern studies, and Doris Meissner- former commissioner of Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

IV. Give an overview of laws that will apply (LEGAL THEORY)

The executive order is both constitutional and has no religious basis. It is very much legal for the

president to pass executive orders and past precedents set during Jimmy Carter’s administration

that give the president the authority to implement executive orders to protect American lives.

The ​Kleindienst v. Mandel ruling and Kerry v. Din ruling both set the precedent that Trump’s

executive order is legally permissible. The US Code Inadmissable Aliens Clause allows the

denial of citizenship for people involved in terrorist activity.

This order in no way violates the establishment clause in the first Amendment that prohibits the

establishment of religion by Congress because there is not mention of religion in the order at all!

This is not a muslim ban, which many news sources have incorrectly called this order. All the

countries being banned are not Muslim! In fact some of the countries are only 13% muslim.
Even north Korea is included in the ban. It’s not even a ban. The executive order is simply

suspending citizens from the countries that give a high risk for american terror threats. The

citizens are only suspended for 90 or 120 days, so the US can further investigate them to make

sure that they will not risk innocent American lives.

In addition to all of this the lower court’s decision also sets a dangerous precedent. The lower

courts were interpreting Trump’s intent in passing the ban. The courts cannot be allowed to

determine whether someone intended to violate the constitution. If so, any President’s decision to

do almost anything could be ruled as unconstitutional by a judge of the opposing party who

believes the President intended to violate the constitution. Every executive order could be struck

down by any judge who simply dislikes the law. The precedent that would be set by ruling in the

defendants favor disrupts the balance of power between the branches of government and would

essentially give the judiciary the unchecked power to stop any action the executive branch makes

based off of a feeling that the executive branch had an intent to violate the constitution.

President Trump is within his realm of legal and constitutional rights in passing Executive order

13780 because it does not violate the establishment clause, and he is granted authority to pass

such a law under the U.S. code and in keeping with past precedents.

V. Last paragraph must circle back to theme and end with call to action

This case is is not Republican versus Democrat. This is not Democrats versus Trump. It is

Hawaii illegally failing to follow the President’s executive order, which has been put in place to
protect American lives. Members of the jury, I urge you to but any biases away and think in

terms of legality. President Trump is fully within his legal realm. Jury, if Hawaii wins this case a

very dangerous precedent would be held that states could not comply with executive orders, fully

taking away the purpose of executive orders. President Trump is trying to enforce an executive

order like many, many Presidents before him have done before.

This case is nothing more than protecting innocent American lives by preventing easy travel to

the United States from countries with high risk terrorist rates. Jury, my council will ask you

reach a verdict that President Trump acted within his legal realm and did not violate the

establishment clause in executive order 13780, ruling against hawaii and overturning the district

court ruling of the executive order.

Direct Doris Meissner (Teddy): Mira

Jury, I present Doris Meissner as an expert witness. I will be questioning her to help clarify the

language, content, and impact of Executive Order 13780

Can you please give us some of your credentials and explain your area of expertise?

I have been involved with the national government for 45 years, first with the Department of

Justice, including being the Executive Director on the Cabinet Committee on Illegal Aliens.

Under Presidents Reagan and Clinton, I was the Commissioner of US Immigration and

Naturalization Services, and am now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, where my

main focus is on administering the nation’s immigration laws, systems, and agencies, as well as

immigration enforcement, border patrol, and cooperation with other countries (MPI).

Can you give us a ​summary of Executive Order 13780?

So first, what this order does, is clearly express that it was made to protect Americans from terror

attacks, ones done by foreigners in particular. In order to do this, the first main point is made that

a 90-day suspension of entry from the countries of Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Libya,

Sudan, North Korea, and Venezuela, chosen because of their growing presence as potentially

dangerous countries. Next is the 120 day suspension of the refugee protection organization

USRAP, because terrorist organizations have been known for infiltrating other countries through

refugee programs. Additionally, the entry of certain foreign nationals is also being suspended so

a thorough background process can be conducted. However, to ease the work of intelligence

agencies, foreign nationals must submit a report on their history and other relevant information
required, and will be allowed into the country once they submit those briefs. These nationals are

also denied entry if they do not follow certain specific regulations, such as having a valid visa on

the date of this order or were outside the country during on the date of the order. However, they

will be allowed entry if they are a citizen or hold dual citizenship, if they have been granted

asylum, or if they are a diplomat. Finally, one of the biggest parts of this order is implementing a

stronger uniform screening and vetting platform for all immigration services. This includes a

number of things, such as a entry-exit tracking service for suspects in terrorist cases, and other

visa-security related programs (Executive).

Are there any exceptions to the temporary 90 day holding period?

Yes. The temporary 90-day pause is subject to individualizes waivers (Executive).

And how would someone qualify for an individualized waiver?

Well, qualification is determined case-by-case. Cases with infants or very young children, or

those in urgent need of medical attention will be allowed in. If they are employed in the U.S. or

by the U.S. government, if they have significant contacts who vouch for their safety, or if they

wish to live with their spouse who is currently living within the U.S. Finally, if they a

government sponsored exchange visitor, they will be able to apply for an individualized waiver

for entry to the United States (Executive).

Using your expertise and research, can you tell us what the Executive order aims to do?

This executive order was made for the sole purpose of protecting innocent American lives. In the

broadest sense, this order is giving the president the authority to suspend the entry of

non-citizens who pose a real threat to American lives (Meissner).

What effects does your research show this Executive Order will have?

With my colleague Sarah Pierce, we took apart Trump’s several executive orders involving the

Executive Order for an Issue Brief and analyzed them provision by provision, policy by policy.

We have checked that everything follows the codes and regulations that we have become

familiar with through education, experience, and research, and have published our examinations

for the Migration Policy Institute. We found that there are numerous examples of positive change

that will come from the creation of this bill. The implementation of a database updated with the

convictions and crimes committed by foreign individuals in our country using similar technology

to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. This is a very effective system and is expected

to help aid in calculating the long-term costs for U.S. refugee resettlement. Additionally, the

uniform screening standards that are implemented are expected to identify all potential criminals

before allowing them to enter, and will record their data to be referred to higher level intelligence

and law enforcement agencies (Meissner).

Is this Executive Order the only one of its kind?

No, this is not the first time in which a president has done this. President Jimmy Carter made

executive order 12172, which held and denied non-immigrant visas from Iran (Jimmy). On the

opposite side, presidents Reagan, Bush, and Obama have all created some form of executive

order to exempt millions of undocumented immigrants already living within the country. Carter

and Obama received quite a bit of backlash, the same as President Trump has, but all are

expressing their constitutional right to executive order.

Some parts of this ban, such as the exemption of lawful citizens from re-entering the country,

had to be modified because of section 212(f) of Article II. It’s quite give and take with some of

the policy, which is why several versions of this Executive Order were released before the final

was decided.
Cross: Mira ​Batulo Ramadhan (immigrant girl): Easter
I. RESEARCH
A. Was able to enter the US because of the court order blocking the travel ban
B. Is not a US citizen
C. Her father was already living in the US
D. lived in a refugee camp in Kenya
II. What they will probably say
A. She is not a terrorist, but is treated like one
1. COUNTER--With the new travel ban, the waiting period would prove she
is not a terrorist and then she would be able to enter the country
B. This ban separated her family
1. The reason her family was separated was QUESTIONS
C. Ms. Ramadhan, I am very sorry about the hardships you have faced
D. When did your Father arrive in the US?
E. When did you arrive in the US?
F. Are you a citizen of the US?
G. Is your father a citizen of the US?
Cross: Preston ​Sally Yates: Tess
1. For how Long Were You Attorney General
a. When were you attorney general? Can you name a month
i. If she answers correct, bail. If she can’t answer, pursue with further
questions demeaning her credibility
b. Why was your term as attorney general only ten days
i. I made a stand against the Trump Administration for what I believe in
c. Ms. Yates, was your job as Attorney General to make a political grandstand or to
serve as a member of Trump's cabinet
d. Your job is in what Branch of Government
i. Executive
ii. As a member of the executive branch, is your job to determine what laws
are constitutional, or to enforce the law?
iii. If she says enforce, attack the fact that she refused to act because she was
interpreting the law when her job is to enforce it, meaning she did not do
the job she was constitutionally obligated to do. If she answers wrong and
says her job is to help the president determine what laws are
constitutional, pivot and attack based on a lack of knowledge on her part.
e. When did you realize you disagreed with the president?
f. Can you explain to us the events leading up to your resignation?
g. Did you have a discussion with the President regarding your views?
i. If no-- So you did not attempt to change the president’s mind before
resigning?
h. Was your goal in this endeavor not troubling our conscious by enforcing
something you don’t believe in or making yourself into a partisan martyr. Because
If your goal was simply to not trouble your conscious, why not just resign?
i. What this looks like to me, is someone trying to get their name in the headlines.
Maybe you wanted fame, maybe you wanted to run for office. Whatever the case
may be, the fact that you didn’t just quietly resigned shows you wanted the
attention correct?
j. It appear that your entire purpose for being in the white house in the first place
was to make a name for yourself. You served under Obama and evidently you
disagree with Trump’s policy. And yet you stayed. So answer this question for me
ms. Yates is your position solely based on what would give you the most press
because it sure looks like you would do whatever it takes including being in the
opposite party’s white house administration to gain attention for yourself so is
your position on this issue based entirely on what will get you the most attention?
i. “No that's not why I have my opinion.”
ii. But if the defendants win this case the precedent set would be that the
courts have the power to interpret intent. Your intent in your actions could
be up for question as it sure does look like you may have intended to
violate the constitution by attempting to block the executive branch’s
power to enforce the law. So I ask you, are you aware that the Defendants
winning this case could potentially cause you to be tried for obstruction of
justice for your potential intent to violate the executive branch’s role in
enforcing the law?