From the New York Times, this is the Daily. I'm Michael Barbar.

Today, the Immigration Band is litigated live in our highest courts. It's a rare opportunity

to listen in as our judicial system answers a fundamental question about what kind of

a country we're going to be. The Times examines a claim that the media, us included, repeatedly

ignored or under-reported attacks by Islamic terrorists. And why the 60-year-old words

of the novelist James Baldwin captured in a new film are so resonant right now.

It's Wednesday, February 8.

Good afternoon. The case on our emergency motion docket today is State of Washington at all

versus Donald J. Trump at all. Case number one, seven, dash three, five, one, one, one.

It's 3 p.m. in San Francisco, and the U.S. Court of Appeals is now in session. Somehow

it's been just a week and a half since President Trump issued his unannounced immigration

band that left thousands of people stranded or detained, provoked protests at airports

across the country and resulted in a slew of lawsuits filed by states against the federal

government. Those lawsuits ricocheted across the judicial system and landed with extraordinary

speed here on Tuesday afternoon in the United States Court of Appeals.

Mr. Flingy, are you on the call? I'm here, thank you. With such speed that attorneys for

the prosecution and the defense and one of the three judges on the panel are joining by

phone. Appearing from Washington, Mr. Purcell, are you here with us on the call? I am, yeah.

So are tens of thousands of Americans who, thanks to San Francisco's open court system,

are listening in on the hearing via live stream. Jesse Wegman and I are among them. Jesse

writes about the courts for the Times editorial board. This is going to be a, apparently,

a conference call. Everybody's, everybody's phoning it in. That's, that's rare. It's unusual.

...