Not quite... the SC can overturn EOs and declare them constitutional.
Lower courts do that too. Higher courts can overturn those repeals of EOs, and they go back and forth.
DC is covered by the DC circuit court, with the infamous Emit judge that “oversaw” the Flynn trial.
Chief Justice Robert’s also directly oversees (and I believe as of recently, even sits on it)
They didn’t have an actual legal basis. That was the problem.
It was literally an unprecedented ruling, where the court didn’t rule on whether DACA was constitutional or not, but that Trump’s argument for removal was insufficient to remove it.
By doing this, SCOTUS literally expanded its own powers.
Ironically, if any future president wants to executive rule or legislate more judges, now the justices have an actual precedent to reject that EO or law on the basis that thier arguement for court packing is insufficient.
Of course, this basis/ruling could be used for literally anything now.
Not quite... the SC can overturn EOs and declare them constitutional.
Lower courts do that too. Higher courts can overturn those repeals of EOs, and they go back and forth.
DC is covered by the DC circuit court, with the infamous Emit judge that “oversaw” the Flynn trial. Chief Justice Robert’s also directly oversees (and I believe as of recently, even sits on it)
That is not the only basis for rejection. Trump had 2 of his orders revoking DACA rejected by the supreme court for other reasons.
I remember that! Seemed like overreach by the courts, but I honestly don’t know their actual legal basis.
They didn’t have an actual legal basis. That was the problem.
It was literally an unprecedented ruling, where the court didn’t rule on whether DACA was constitutional or not, but that Trump’s argument for removal was insufficient to remove it.
By doing this, SCOTUS literally expanded its own powers.
Ironically, if any future president wants to executive rule or legislate more judges, now the justices have an actual precedent to reject that EO or law on the basis that thier arguement for court packing is insufficient.
Of course, this basis/ruling could be used for literally anything now.