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.
"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"
Any employee obeying a SCOTUS ruling is in violation of this EO, unless the President agrees to that ruling.
No EO may say that SCOTUS can override them, but no other EO blocks federal employees from obeying SCOTUS.
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.
You seem to be confused about the basics of constitutional law and the separation of powers. EOs are not at all subject to judicial review. Those are simply communications within the executive branch, like a memo. There is literally nothing to review and no case law supports your claim. But the judiciary does have the authority to issue orders regarding actions taken by federal employees and agencies if they do something contrary to federal law — regardless of whether those actions were motivated by an EO or anything else.
> EOs are subject to judicial review and are only valid if there's a congressional or constitutional basis
This is just nonsense.
Trump, for example, recently signed an EO to end the use of paper straws.
Where is your justification that there is a valid congressional or constitutional basis for this ? Of course there isn’t. Executive Orders allow the President to interpret existing laws as they see fit. Even in ways they were never intended to be interpreted.
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?
"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"
Any employee obeying a SCOTUS ruling is in violation of this EO, unless the President agrees to that ruling.
No EO may say that SCOTUS can override them, but no other EO blocks federal employees from obeying SCOTUS.
9 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.
You seem to be confused about the basics of constitutional law and the separation of powers. EOs are not at all subject to judicial review. Those are simply communications within the executive branch, like a memo. There is literally nothing to review and no case law supports your claim. But the judiciary does have the authority to issue orders regarding actions taken by federal employees and agencies if they do something contrary to federal law — regardless of whether those actions were motivated by an EO or anything else.
1 reply →
> EOs are subject to judicial review and are only valid if there's a congressional or constitutional basis
This is just nonsense.
Trump, for example, recently signed an EO to end the use of paper straws.
Where is your justification that there is a valid congressional or constitutional basis for this ? Of course there isn’t. Executive Orders allow the President to interpret existing laws as they see fit. Even in ways they were never intended to be interpreted.
3 replies →