# Federal judge blocks President's executive order: how? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953 "2017-02-04T01:50:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/201 "2017-02-10T01:02:47Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > A bit conflicted on this. > > On the one hand I’m pleased that the order was struck down since I think it was probably a stupid and counterproductive policy. OTOH, it does seem like a further expansion of the court’s powers. > > Not that I’m a legal scholar or anything. But most of the legal commentary before these decisions came down suggested that it would be a stretch for the courts to overrule the prez in this matter. So I assume this is something new. It is a frightening expansion of judicial power. It was one thing when it was academic arguments about things like same sex marriage where, at the end of the day, no big deal to opponents. But the judiciary has now, honest to goodness, held that _it_ and not the executive or the legislative branches have final say on who comes into the country. It is not at all a stretch to believe that it will now say it can review military strikes or declarations of war. I agree with you that the travel ban had some serious flaws, and if I was the President, I would not have enacted it. But this ruling says that the President has no power to set immigration policies without ensuring that constitutional rights, which have never applied to non-citizens abroad, are now applied to non-citizens abroad. The standing question is even more troubling. By saying that the States have standing because employees at their universities cannot conduct research or travel runs that argument into the ground. Hell, do I have standing now to challenge the order? After all, one of these immigrants may come to my office and want to conduct business with me, and by keeping them out of the country, it hurts my bottom line. This is some shocking judicial arrogance. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/202 "2017-02-10T01:05:52Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > But this ruling says that the President has no power to set immigration policies without ensuring that constitutional rights, which have never applied to non-citizens abroad, are now applied to non-citizens abroad. Have you read the opinion? You should. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/203 "2017-02-10T01:07:31Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It is a frightening expansion of judicial power. You need to check post #197, in reality several experts from the left and the right thought that it was more likely that Trump was the one overreaching. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/204 "2017-02-10T01:18:55Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It was one thing when it was academic arguments about things like same sex marriage where, at the end of the day, no big deal to opponents. Now _that’s_ a radical reinterpretation of the historical text. Anti-SSM’ers screamed after the Obgerfell decision that pedophilia, bestiality, dogs & cats living together, etc. etc. was going to be the inevitable result of SSM being made nationally legal. “No big deal,” my great-aunt’s fanny. ---
**Author:** ![dofe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ba0ec/32.png) [@dofe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dofe)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/205 "2017-02-10T01:27:18Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I agree with you that the travel ban had some serious flaws, and if I was the President, I would not have enacted it. But this ruling says that the President has no power to set immigration policies without ensuring that constitutional rights, which have never applied to non-citizens abroad, are now applied to non-citizens abroad. Seriously, read the court’s order. It addresses the states’ and the government’s arguments, and makes a reasonable determination rejecting the government’s contentions. [QUOTE=Ninth Circuit] Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) (emphasizing that the power of the political branches over immigration “is subject to important constitutional limitations”); Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41 (rejecting the argument that Congress has “unreviewable authority over the regulation of aliens,” and affirming that courts can review “whether Congress has chosen a constitutionally permissible means of implementing that power”). Our court has likewise made clear that “[a]lthough alienage classifications are closely connected to matters of foreign policy and national security,” courts “can and do review foreign policy arguments that are offered to justify legislative or executive action when constitutional rights are at stake.” American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995). Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), does not compel a different conclusion. The Government cites Mandel for the proposition that “‘when the Executive exercises’ immigration authority ‘on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that discretion.’” The Government omits portions of the quoted language to imply that this standard governs judicial review of all executive exercises of immigration authority. In fact, the Mandel standard applies to lawsuits challenging an executive branch official’s decision to issue or deny an individual visa based on the application of a congressionally enumerated standard to the particular facts presented by that visa application. The present case, by contrast, is not about the application of a specifically enumerated congressional policy to the particular facts presented in an individual visa application. Rather, the States are challenging the President’s promulgation of sweeping immigration policy. Such exercises of policymaking authority at the highest levels of the political branches are plainly not subject to the Mandel standard; as cases like Zadvydas and Chadha make clear, courts can and do review constitutional challenges to the substance and implementation of immigration policy. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 695; Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41. This is no less true when the challenged immigration action implicates national security concerns. See Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 19 (1942) (stating that courts have a duty, “in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty”); Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120-21 (1866) (“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace … under all circumstances.”). We are mindful that deference to the political branches is particularly appropriate with respect to national security and foreign affairs, given the relative institutional capacity, informational access, and expertise of the courts. See Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 33- 34. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=UltraVires] The standing question is even more troubling. By saying that the States have standing because employees at their universities cannot conduct research or travel runs that argument into the ground. Hell, do I have standing now to challenge the order? After all, one of these immigrants may come to my office and want to conduct business with me, and by keeping them out of the country, it hurts my bottom line. [/QUOTE] You likely don’t have standing because you don’t have controlling Supreme Court and Circuit case law to support your proposition. The States, on the other hand, had controlling authority to support their assertions, including cases that held that schools may assert the right of their students. ---
**Author:** ![pompeybear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8c91f0/32.png) [@pompeybear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pompeybear)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/206 "2017-02-10T01:27:59Z")
Not that it would happen, but I wonder if Texas could sue in the same way Washington has, but essentially in bad faith, so as to ensure that the case was also heard by the 5th circuit. What would that look like anyway, if the 9th circuit struck down and the 5th circuit upheld (and the Supreme Court split)? Would different parts of the country have different entry standards? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/207 "2017-02-10T01:32:03Z")
> [@pompeybear](#): > > Not that it would happen, but I wonder if Texas could sue in the same way Washington has, but essentially in bad faith, so as to ensure that the case was also heard by the 5th circuit. What would that look like anyway, if the 9th circuit struck down and the 5th circuit upheld (and the Supreme Court split)? Would different parts of the country have different entry standards? No. The TRO from WA is nationwide. At most, the 5th Cir. litigation would result in the absence of an injunction, so no conflict. Of course, there are lots of times when the two parts of the country do have different law, but in the immigration context judges have been more willing to enter nationwide injunctions. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/208 "2017-02-10T01:50:13Z")
Here’s the nut paragraphs on standing: > [@](#): > > Under the “third party standing” doctrine, these injuries to the state universities give the States standing to assert the rights of the students, scholars, and faculty affected by the Executive Order. _See Singleton v. Wulff_, 428 U.S. 106, 11416 (1976) (explaining that third-party standing is allowed when the third party’s interests are “inextricably bound up with the activity the litigant wishes to pursue”; when the litigant is “fully, or very nearly, as effective a proponent of the right” as the third party; or when the third party is less able to assert her own rights). Vendors, for example, “have been uniformly permitted to resist efforts at restricting their operations by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function.” \* Craig v. Boren\*, 429 U.S. 190, 195 (1976). Likewise, doctors have been permitted to assert the rights of their patients. _See, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut_, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). And advocacy organizations such as the NAACP have been permitted to assert the constitutional rights of their members. _See, e.g., NAACP v. Alabama_, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). > > Most relevant for our purposes, schools have been permitted to assert the rights of their students. _See, e.g., Runyon v. McCrary_, 427 U.S. 160, 175 & n.13 (1976) (“It is clear that the schools have standing to assert these arguments [asserting free-association rights, privacy rights, and ‘a parent’s right to direct the education of his children’] on behalf of their patrons.”); _Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters_, 268 U.S. 510, 536 (1925) (allowing a school to assert the “right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training [and] the right of the child to influence the parents’ choice of a school”); _Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington_, 51 F.3d 1480, 1487-88 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Pierce and rejecting the argument that the plaintiff school had no standing to assert claims of discrimination against its minority students); _see also Ohio Ass’n of Indep. Sch. v. Goff_, 92 F.3d 419, 422 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing similar authorities). As in those cases, the interests of the States’ universities here are aligned with their students. The students’ educational success is “inextricably bound up” in the universities’ capacity to teach them. _Singleton_, 428 U.S. at 115. And the universities’ reputations depend on the success of their professors’ research. Thus, as the operators of state universities, the States may assert not only their own rights to the extent affected by the Executive Order but may also assert the rights of their students and faculty members. And as to the scope: > [@](#): > > [W]e decline to limit the scope of the TRO to lawful permanent residents and the additional category more recently suggested by the Government, in its reply memorandum, “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future.” That limitation on its face omits aliens who are in the United States unlawfully, and those individuals have due process rights as well. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693. That would also omit claims by citizens who have an interest in specific non-citizens’ ability to travel to the United States. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2139 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (six Justices declining to adopt a rule that would categorically bar U.S. citizens from asserting cognizable liberty interests in the receipt of visas by alien spouses). There might be persons covered by the TRO who do not have viable due process claims, but the Government’s proposed revision leaves out at least some who do. ’ This leaves a lot of room for reevaluation once the district court gets to a PI. I don’t think we should be too shocked if refugees are carved out, but it will depend on the strength of the standing arguments with respect to them in particular. ETA: There’s a good argument that no PI is necessary given the nature of the 9th Cir. ruling. Wonder if they’ll argue that… ---
**Author:** ![pompeybear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8c91f0/32.png) [@pompeybear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pompeybear)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/209 "2017-02-10T02:06:05Z")
> [@](#): > > [W]e decline to limit the scope of the TRO to lawful permanent residents and the additional category more recently suggested by the Government, in its reply memorandum, “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future.” **That limitation on its face omits aliens who are in the United States unlawfully, and those individuals have due process rights as well.** Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693. That would also omit claims by citizens who have an interest in specific non-citizens’ ability to travel to the United States. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2139 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (six Justices declining to adopt a rule that would categorically bar U.S. citizens from asserting cognizable liberty interests in the receipt of visas by alien spouses). There might be persons covered by the TRO who do not have viable due process claims, but the Government’s proposed revision leaves out at least some who do. **Emphasis mine.** Is the court arguing that the EO might violate the right of illegal immigrants to leave and re-enter the country? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/210 "2017-02-10T02:27:59Z")
> [@pompeybear](#): > > **Emphasis mine.** Is the court arguing that the EO might violate the right of illegal immigrants to leave and re-enter the country? No. The due process that illegal immigrants are owed is the opportunity to assert various defenses to removal (or non-admission) including claims of asylum. ---
**Author:** ![pompeybear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8c91f0/32.png) [@pompeybear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pompeybear)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/211 "2017-02-10T02:42:24Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > No. The due process that illegal immigrants are owed is the opportunity to assert various defenses to removal (or non-admission) including claims of asylum. Ah. Ok. I was having a hard time following that. It seems to me that if Trump is sincere it would be smarter to rescind the EO and spend some time reworking it to address some of these issues before re-issuing. That doesn’t seem to be his way though… From a political standpoint, he probably even likes having an adversarial relationship with the courts. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/212 "2017-02-10T03:05:13Z")
> [@pompeybear](#): > > Ah. Ok. I was having a hard time following that. > > It seems to me that if Trump is sincere it would be smarter to rescind the EO and spend some time reworking it to address some of these issues before re-issuing. That doesn’t seem to be his way though… From a political standpoint, he probably even likes having an adversarial relationship with the courts. **Trump is sincere** - while he is apparently about the easiest person to ‘control’ and has little critical thinking skills that are evident - he is very sincere in his goals. What I found funny was the recent statements, by him. that he wanted to wait a month but was advised against it - what I dont get is how his followers cannot keep track of his changes. \*\* If Trump were smart\*\* - he would have simply tightened the rule(s) without having to use the EO. Much of what he thinks he is trying to fix is already in place anyway - and has clearly been working. He used the EO to make a grandstand ‘statement’ as well as to attempt to assert the authority he thinks he suddenly has. And it bit him in the ass - and this is exactly the way it needs to. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/213 "2017-02-10T03:10:33Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > A bit conflicted on this. > > On the one hand I’m pleased that the order was struck down since I think it was probably a stupid and counterproductive policy. OTOH, it does seem like a further expansion of the court’s powers. > > Not that I’m a legal scholar or anything. But most of the legal commentary before these decisions came down suggested that it would be a stretch for the courts to overrule the prez in this matter. So I assume this is something new. Wait … be sure to check the other foot … > [@](#): > > The Obama administration argues that the changes are well within the executive branch’s discretionary power to enforce existing immigration law. But conservative opponents counter that the executive actions are an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’s power to write American laws. > > [“A Ruling Against the Obama Administration on Immigration”](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/fifth-circuit-obama-immigration/415077/) – The Atlantic – Nov 10th, 2015 So if the courts agree with you, then they _can_ say who can or cannot be in the country … yeesh … for the cost of deporting 5 million Mexicans now we have to let in tens of thousands of blood-thirsty ISIS-trained terrorists … ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/214 "2017-02-10T05:37:11Z")
Of course there is that pesky constitution too… > [@](#): > > ARTICLE III > > SECTION 2 > > **The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority** ;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. But ya…Trump doesn’t seem to think that it applies to him. ---
**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/215 "2017-02-10T05:55:25Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Wait … be sure to check the other foot … > > So if the courts agree with you, then they _can_ say who can or cannot be in the country … yeesh … for the cost of deporting 5 million Mexicans **now we have to let in tens of thousands of blood-thirsty ISIS-trained terrorists** … Bolding mine. Where are these tens of thousands of strawmen coming from? The countries on Trump’s list were already on a previous list from Obama without the “ban” and religious test baggage. The people who did get visas from the countries were already in refugee camps AND were vetted. The investigations took from two up to four years. There’s been no terrorist actions by individuals who went through this process in spite of Trump’s groundless bluster about “under-reporting” of terrorist incidents. His claims were rated mostly, “pants-on-fire”. Please explain without the “millions” and “tens of thousands” strawmen.:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/216 "2017-02-10T13:21:32Z")
One of the interesting aspects of the case which conservatives could potentially use to great mischief is that the 9th circuit openly used Trump’s statements about banning Muslims against the government. That could be a very useful predecent to overturn Democratic regulatory and tax bills which are intended as punishment for companies and classes of individuals they don’t like. Courts can rule those bills to be “bills of attainder” in the future based on Democratic campaign statements. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/217 "2017-02-10T13:22:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > One of the interesting aspects of the case which conservatives could potentially use to great mischief is that the 9th circuit openly used Trump’s statements about banning Muslims against the government. That could be a very useful predecent to overturn Democratic regulatory and tax bills which are intended as punishment for companies and classes of individuals they don’t like. Courts can rule those bills to be “bills of attainder” in the future based on Democratic campaign statements. Got an example in mind? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/218 "2017-02-10T13:27:27Z")
The NC court that overturned the voter ID law also used Republican statements about vote suppression against them as well. As for an example, Democrats never ending quest to end oil company tax breaks is one example. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/219 "2017-02-10T13:29:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > As for an example, Democrats never ending quest to end oil company tax breaks is one example. Got an example of this in mind? Your example should have two parts: 1. A specific statement made by a politician that indicates an intent to engage in unconstitutional behavior; and 2. A specific act (executive order, proposed bill, vote, etc.) that is potentially motivated by a desire to complete an unconstitutional act, and that is plausibly connected to the statement in part 1. If you don’t have those, if you’re just spitballing and saying random things, I’ll ignore your post; I was curious if you were actually talking about something real. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953/220 "2017-02-10T14:06:03Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I have to say, when you see the ACLU _and_ the Cato Institute on the same page … I don’t agree with this. The ACLU and Cato Institute are political/ideological entities, and their legal positions will tend to follow their ideologies. Any time their ideologies intersect the legal consensus will follow. The better way to get a sense of what the weight of legal opinion is is by looking at the more non-partisan experts and scholars who get quoted in the NYT/WaPo/CNN and the like. And my reading of these types of sources in the immediate aftermath of the EO being issued was that legal challenges would face an uphill battle. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-blocks-presidents-executive-order-how/778953.md?page=12)