It is entirely possible that Donald Trump is literally the worst client in the history of America. I mean, how many clients have nearly unlimited access to speak to the entire nation, but then use the access to tell the nation that their lawyers are lying on their behalf? How many clients promise the courts that if they get away with what they’re being accused of, they will use it as license to do something far worse?

Have you read President Trump’s latest tweets? As Lin-Manuel Miranda might say, “You ever see somebody ruin they own life?”

HIGHLIGHTS

People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2017

Damn. Or rather, DAMN.

The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2017

It ain’t gonna be Constitutional now.

The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court – & seek much tougher version! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2017

Since the President of the United States is obviously unaware of the details of the Travel Ban litigation, let me explain what you just saw. The government’s position is that the Travel Ban is not a “ban.” Instead. it’s just a security measure. People opposed to the ban have extensively used Trump’s own statements about the ban to show that the ban is a “ban” being disguised as a security measure.

Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall has pushed back hard against the charge, denying before the courts that the executive order at issue is a “travel ban.” The government says that you shouldn’t use the president’s campaign statements to divine the intent of his executive orders. Wall told the Ninth Circuit: “We shouldn’t start down the road of psychoanalyzing what people meant on the campaign trail.”

Conservative judges have been, more or less, sympathetic to this argument. They’re not saying that a president’s words don’t matter. They’re not saying that intent doesn’t matter. They’re saying that Trump’s campaign rhetoric is not a good metric by which to judge the intent of his policy.

When Trump, now not as a campaigner but as President of the United States, then says that the Travel Ban is a “BAN,” it kind of blows apart the whole argument. When he further suggests that his policy was a “watered down, politically correct version,” it is EVIDENCE that the security concerns are a disingenuous attempt to push through a ban that would otherwise be unconstitutional.

When he says that the Justice Department should seek an “expedited hearing” on the P.C. ban “& seek much tougher version,” I mean, I don’t even know what to do with that. He’s threatening to use whatever legal cover he gets for this executive order to make “tougher” (read: “unconstitutional”) restrictions in the future. It’s not a threat, it’s a promise.

Omar C. Jadwat, who argued the case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, wrote that Trump’s tweets amounted to “a promise: let me do this and I’ll take it as license to do even worse.”

Even conservative lawyers are flabbergasted by Trump’s statements. Even conservative lawyers who, until very recently, were considering working for Trump and are married to Trump spin doctors:

These tweets may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won't help OSG get 5 votes in SCOTUS, which is what actually matters. Sad. https://t.co/zVhcyfm8Hr — George Conway (@gtconway3d) June 5, 2017

This is, or should be, an “ethics check” moment for Trump’s Travel Ban legal defense team.

Mr. Wall, your client just admitted that he’s doing the thing you’ve argued he didn’t do. He just told the world that you are lying to the appellate courts of this nation. Mr. Wall, you have previously said that if the ban was a “ban,” you wouldn’t be defending it. (Wall was referring specifically to a “Muslim ban,” but there’s not a lot of daylight between a “Muslim ban” and a travel ban with a very disparate impact on Muslims — and just wait until Trump himself tweets that it’s a “Muslim ban.”)

When you are defending a person accused of murder, and your client says “yeah, I killed him and if I get off I’ll kill again,” the ethical thing to do is to request new counsel be appointed. You cannot in good conscience continue to represent a client that you know to be lying.

As Acting Solicitor General, your responsibility to the Constitution trumps your responsibility to the petty despot you happen to represent. The right thing to do is to remove yourself from defending this policy that the President just admitted is a Trojan Horse designed to subvert constitutional principles.

The Trump tweets are are “Reynold’s Pamphlet” of this travel ban. Whether it’s constitutional is one less thing to worry about.

Trump’s latest tweets could hurt effort to restore travel ban [Washington Post]

Earlier:

Elie Mystal is an editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.