<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><version>1.0</version><provider_name>Just Security</provider_name><provider_url>https://www.justsecurity.org</provider_url><title>Travel Ban III: Why the Court Does Not Have to Second-Guess Any (Nonexistent) Presidential National Security Decisions - Just Security</title><type>rich</type><width>600</width><height>338</height><html>&lt;blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="K56dWTRVfb"&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/55429/court-second-guess-presidents-national-security-decisions-order-rule-lacks-statutory-authority-issue-travel-ban-iii/"&gt;Travel Ban III: Why the Court Does Not Have to Second-Guess Any (Nonexistent) Presidential National Security Decisions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://www.justsecurity.org/55429/court-second-guess-presidents-national-security-decisions-order-rule-lacks-statutory-authority-issue-travel-ban-iii/embed/#?secret=K56dWTRVfb" width="600" height="338" title="&#x201C;Travel Ban III: Why the Court Does Not Have to Second-Guess Any (Nonexistent) Presidential National Security Decisions&#x201D; &#x2014; Just Security" data-secret="K56dWTRVfb" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;script type="text/javascript"&gt;
/* &lt;![CDATA[ */
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&amp;&amp;d.addEventListener&amp;&amp;"undefined"!=typeof URL&amp;&amp;(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&amp;&amp;!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i&lt;o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i&lt;a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&amp;&amp;(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3&lt;(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r&lt;200&amp;&amp;(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&amp;&amp;(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&amp;&amp;n.host===r.host&amp;&amp;l.activeElement===s&amp;&amp;(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r&lt;s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
/* ]]&gt; */
&lt;/script&gt;
</html><thumbnail_url>https://i0.wp.com/www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/GettyImages-951102478-e1524766747643.jpg?fit=3000%2C1530&amp;ssl=1</thumbnail_url><thumbnail_width>3000</thumbnail_width><thumbnail_height>1530</thumbnail_height><description>[Cross-posted at Balkinization.] There&#x2019;s already been a great deal written about yesterday&#x2019;s oral argument in&#xA0;Trump v. Hawaii.&#xA0;&#xA0;Most observers have focused on whether, for purposes of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the Court should or must (or will) accept the facially neutral reasons offered for the &#x201C;Travel Ban III&#x201D; Proclamation or whether, instead, the [&hellip;]</description></oembed>
