“Come to order. Vincent Canby presiding. I will start by questioning the government. Who is representing the Department of Justice?”

“Me, sir.”

“Oh, God. Jenkins?”

“Yes, your honor.”

“You’re a lawyer now?”

“Fordham, class of ’03.”

“Let’s get on with this. The government is petitioning this court to lift the freeze put on the travel ban instituted by the president’s Executive Order.”

“Yes, sir, and if possible we are asking you to throw the judge who issued the freeze in jail.”

“For what reason?”

“His hatred of America, sir.”

“Denied. We are discussing two key points here: is there an immediate need to reinstate the ban, and is this ban even remotely Constitutional. The first: why the rush to remove the freeze?”

“The clear and present danger to our country posed by refugees and immigrants that have already gone through 18 months to three years of screening.”

“Really?”

“Terrorists like to play the long con, sir.”

“I notice you’re conflating the terms refugee and immigrant with terrorist.”

“Oh, did you notice? I was trying to be subtle.”

“Is there any evidence that people from the seven countries affected are involved in criminal activities?”

“We’re sure.”

“Excuse me?”

“The government is, like, a thousand percent positive that these so-called people are actually terrorists.”

“Uh-huh.”

“Just look at ’em.”

“Counselor.”

“You can almost smell the terror coming off ’em.”

GAVEL!

“Stop that.”

“Pardon me, your honor. The government is additionally arguing that you don’t have the authority to rule on this case.”

“You’re saying the judiciary can’t review an action by the Executive branch?”

“That is our position, yes.”

“Have you even read the Constitution?”

“It is also the government’s position that the Constitution is fake news, sir.”

“I see. Thank you for bringing up the Constitution; we’ll move on to our second point. This ban affects only Muslim countries.”

“No, your honor. This ban affects only poor Muslim countries. And also it is not a Muslim ban, and anyone saying that is a hater.”

“It’s not a Muslim ban?”

“No, sir.”

“Then why did the president call it that in a tweet?”

“You’re taking that out of context, your honor. When he wrote that phrase, he was making air quotes with his fingers, so it doesn’t count.”

“That’s not legal, Jenkins.”

“Sir, I refer you to 1972’s case Takesie v. Backsie.”

“Not a case.”

“It’s not a Muslim ban, your honor. It’s a ban on Muslims.”

“What’s the difference?”

“Word order.”

“Counselor, are you trying to throw this case?”

“I invoke my right to Fifth Amendment protections, as I believe that anything I say may incriminate me.”

“Gotcha.”