In court, Washington solicitor general Noah Purcell called the White House’s arguments “frightening”, arguing that they cloaked everything under a veil of national security concerns. The government had argued, he said: “If the president says, ‘I’m doing this for national security’, then the court cannot review that that’s a reasonable reason. Our view is that’s not the law.”

it probably actually is the law, though. again....canadian....

...but, the white house is probably right that it can't review why, but only how.

so, if the state showed up and said "you can't do this because it's not really for national security", then that's probably not going to hold up on appeal. the state would have to show up and say "what you're doing does not logically follow from the reasons you're citing." - that the ban will not succeed in keeping anybody safer. see, it's not that this is wrong, it's that it's hard to make the argument in court in a way that is powerful enough to overturn the executive branch on a point of fact. the discussion isn't really about facts. so, it's one thing to suggest it's specious, it's another to say it's wrong. how can a judge state that with force? again: this is where the importance of the sunset clause comes in.

it doesn't seem to me that this argument is going to hold. they could pick up another argument, mind you.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/trump-travel-ban-temporarily-blocked-nationwide