Comment by ceejayoz
1 year ago
“No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law“ would seem to rule out, say, accepting a SCOTUS ruling against the President, should he insist it was wrongly decided.
Does any law or executive order say "unless invalidated by a court"? Isn't that kind of a given?
“John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
They are openly contesting the authority of the courts in various statements.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp
> Vice-President JD Vance has suggested judges do not have authority over the Trump administration's executive power, as the White House responds to a flurry of lawsuits that aim to stall its agenda. "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power," he wrote on X.
For those unfamiliar -- the quote is from Andrew Jackson, and his stance on the court's invalidation of the US state of Georgia's policies that led to the Trail of Tears.
Not a positive model to emulate.
AFAIK the only other time this has been done was during the US civil war.
If the court cannot have an opinion more valid than the issuer of the EO, then on what authority can they invalidate it? The issuer can always say: that isn't how the law is meant to be read.
First they marginalize, then they alienate, then they never have to take the extreme action that people like you would recognize as a problem.
Doesn't the EO apply specifically to the executive branch? How is this marginalizing the judicial branch?
1 reply →
Pre-2016, you’d be correct
Today? It’s no longer a given. Trump, Vance, and Musk have all indicated a willingness to ignore court orders. Whether they will go they far is yet to be seen.
> indicated a willingness
It's not even hypothetical, they've already refused to follow court decisions. For example, when Trump seized funds already allocated by Congress, and ignored a court-order declaring it was unlawful.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/trump-unfreezing-feder...
[flagged]
Flagged
They are trying to supercede the oath to the the constitution that people in the executive take, and also to supercede the authority of the other branches.
It's as simple as that.
A court ruling isn't a matter of law - you can say the ruling was issued wrongly, and you may even be right, but you still have to follow it.
If that were the case, then SCOTUS would just invalidate the EO.
SCOTUS can't just "invalidate" an Executive Order like how they can invalidate an unconstitutional law (judicial review). The court system doesn't work like that. No one would have standing to bring such a case, nor does the judicial branch have authority over executive branch internal communications.
What could happen is that a federal agency follows an EO in a manner contrary to law, and that action causes some sort of harm or loss to a person. That injured party could then bring a legal action against the agency and the Court could order the agency to cease that action. But it still wouldn't invalidate the EO.
EOs are subject to judicial review. Whether it's a law or an EO someone typically needs standing to challenge it. Although, you can even have Congress create a resolution allowing that. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with the wording of the current EO. What is more likely to be challenged are any rules that come from that EO that run counter to the law.
"But it still wouldn't invalidate the EO." Truman and the steel mills would disgree.
And the President’s order compels them to ignore that contradictory opinion.
Where does it say that? What other EOs explicitly say that SCOTUS can override them?
10 replies →
You keep arguing the same point in this thread. So let’s make it simple.
If Congress or the SCOTUS says do A and the President says do B then the Executive Branch are required to do B.
That’s an unprecedented situation.
"That’s an unprecedented situation."
It's simply untrue is what it is. EOs are subject to judicial review and are only valid if there's a congressional or constitutional basis. You can't grant yourself extra powers outside of the existing framework, which the EO doesn't even claim to do. Again, other EOs don't have the framework enumerated in them and have been found to be invalid. There's plenty of case law one can look at.
6 replies →