Video from the Cato Institute's event on the the origination clause oral argument is here (featuring Tim Sandefur, who argued the case, Ilya Somin [George Mason Law] and Simon Lazarus [Constitutional Accountability Center]).
The argument recording, from the D.C. Circuit website, is here. Randy Barnett comments here.
The panel appears about as bad as it could be for the challengers: Judge Judith Rogers, a Clinton appointee, and Judges Wilkins and Pillard. The latter two were among the three judges appointed by President Obama in 2013 and approved by the Senate after the majority overrode the filibuster rules.
At the time the filibuster rules were changed, there was speculation that it was being done for exactly this purpose: to place administration-friendly judges on the D.C. Circuit in advance of various challenges to high-priority administration policies.
That being so, it would be a great day for the rule of law if the panel (or even one of them in dissent) showed independence from the administration by endorsing the origination clause argument, which (as Randy Barnett says) has a strong basis in the Constitution's text. Until something like that starts happening on a regular basis, it's hard to counter the cynicism that has infected many people's assessment of the judiciary — that the only thing that matters is the composition of the panel. The panel could not be better situated to strike a blow against that corrosive view.
Posted at 6:32 PM