So they allowed it. And it will continue to happen. They could have stopped it but chose not to.
So no, it isn’t dishonest as this is materially the consequence of their decision. Hypothetical future challenges are not real.
So no, it isn’t dishonest as this is materially the consequence of their decision. Hypothetical future challenges are not real.
No, within the context of the Supreme Court they didn’t allow it any more than that one district court ruling stopped it. It’s this sort of misinterpretation of what lifting a stay really means for folks on the ground that poisons a lot of lay discussion.
Do we have a source for behavior having changed on the ground?
My understanding is it hadn’t during the appeals process.