DOJ refers to Air Force One threat as ‘assassination attempt’ in ballroom appeal
The Justice Department described the Iranian missile threat incident that led President Trump to secretly switch planes last month as an “assassination attempt” in a new court filing on Friday. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer mentioned the incident in an emergency appeal to Supreme Court asking it to overturn a lower court’s block on the…
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the administration’s appeal could argue that a credible threat to the President underscores the practical security pressures surrounding the presidency and the need for courts to give substantial weight to executive judgments in urgent matters. They may contend that government lawyers are entitled to explain the broader context in which presidential decisions are made, particularly where national security and continuity of government are implicated.
The case against
Critics could argue that describing the incident as an assassination attempt risks introducing emotionally powerful but legally irrelevant material into a dispute over the ballroom project. They may maintain that even serious security threats do not remove the need to follow statutory, constitutional and procedural limits, and that courts should assess the challenged action on its own evidence rather than defer simply because the presidency faces danger.