What arson sleuths did, the brief claimed, was "less scientific".
The government concedes no ground in its brief, claiming that its interpretation is "the only plausible reading of the Act".
One state legislator has filed an amicus brief, claiming the law was not intended to be used this way, and the Legislature has repeatedly rejected amendments to expand the law's definition of "child" to explicitly mean "fetus".
"Such a result, if allowed to stand, is very dangerous to the music community, is certain to stifle future creativity, and ultimately does a disservice to past songwriters as well," the brief claimed.
The brief claims the order violates USC 1152, which requires that "no person shall… be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence".
In response, Yahoo!'s lawyers released a legal brief claiming that the company has no intention of competing on the library front and has simply been financially backing the parties involved in the case against Google.
The companies also argue that the discrimination enshrined in the order will trickle down to the companies themselves — if job applicants can't travel to the United States, companies might be forced to discriminate against them, the brief claims.
The one exception the Schlozman/von Spakovsky brief claims to find is a 2007 settlement agreement with the City of Philadelphia, primarily about providing Spanish-language assistance.
Law schools' symbolic protest, the brief claimed, "sends the message that employment in the Armed Forces...is less honorable or desirable than employment with...other organizations".
