Trump has vowed to sign Executive Orders on day one regarding the border, deportations, and other priorities. Is there anything stopping lawyers from suing the president claiming the orders are unconstitutional? Would those lawsuits go directly to the Supreme Court or would they slowly work their way up the US court system? Would suing be an effective way to slow down and perhaps nullify some of the expected executive orders, or will the current make-up of the Supreme Court make it a futile effort?
An executive order can be challenged in the courts (as several of Trump’s were during his first term). A challenge would work its way through the federal courts from district court>appeals court>Supreme Court.
No.
They would slowly work their way up through the US court system. However, the party who thinks the orders are unconstitutional can attempt to seek a preliminary injunction pending an ultimate ruling, if they feel irreparable harm will attach by allowing the orders to go ahead.
I guess we’re about to find out. I have no confidence in the current SCOTUS, personally.
ETA: Been awhile since I added it: IANAL.
Thanks. Ignorance fought.
If the plaintiff of a complaint receives an injunction and the defendant contests it, the case can go up to an appellate court as quickly as a space can be found on the docket, particularly if it is a time-sensitive issue. Getting to the Supreme Court (assuming the appellate court doesn’t knock it down) is more questionable, and SCOTUS often flatly refuses to hear controversial cases if the majority doesn’t want to render a judgment on it, sending back doen to thr lower court. On the other hand, if it is a juicy issue that ‘appeals’ to a majority of justices, they can arbitrarily rearrange the docket, e.g. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization or Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
Agreed, with prejudice. This court has no scruples or leadership, and cannot be relied upon to put the breaks on anything but the most trivial of executive overreach.
Stranger
Yes, there are lots of ways it can go, fast and slow, depending on how the SCOTUS manipulates the docket and their preferences for hearing a case.
I mostly wanted to convey that there are remedies. Unfortunately, justice depends on a fair, impartial and honest SCOTUS. Which we currently – and may never again – have.
In the former world of law, a baldly unconstitutional executive order would be swiftly overturned. But I don’t count on that anymore.
The ACLU is going to be all over this, believe me. If you’re looking for some way to help, they work off of donations.
I have pledged one third of my entire residual estate to them. Also the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the Union for Concerned Scientists.
The Institute for Justice also takes on civil rights case, often ones that a for-profit firm won’t touch because of the amount of effort and ‘small’ yield, but many of their cases are quite consequential.
Stranger
I’d not heard of them. Thank you! I’ll add them to my list of beneficiaries.
I recommend you look into them a bit. The Institute for Justice was founded using Charles Koch’s money and very much libertarian. If you’re cool with that, fine.
The Institute for Justice is distinctly Libertarian. That doesn’t mean I do not support cases they take (I think they are on the good side many times) but I send my money to the ACLU.
YMMV
I wasn’t done researching them, but thank you exceedingly for sharing this and saving me some time. If they are in any way in pursuit of Koch interests, I’m out. I loathe them. Even the dead one(s).
In any case, I will support the ACLU for any role they take in opposing unconstitutional presidential executive orders – and I’m sure there will be many of those.
IJ really doesn’t pursue Koch interests, and they represent individuals, typically in cases of municipal or state overreach (officials abusing their authority to persecute someone or protect their own interests), law enforcement abuse, eminent domain, and particularly asset forfeiture (which is something that the ACLU has been notably reluctant to contest in recent years because it is considered low profile). I can fully understand not wanting to be associated with the Koch Brothers (although they have funded some surprisingly progressive causes like convict rehabilitation and oppose private prisons) but IJ is in the right (in my view) on issues that they ACLU doesn’t want to touch because it isn’t a showpiece case.
Here are a couple of cases (sorry for the ling discussion but their ‘shorts’ are not very informative):
Stranger
Thanks. I’ll do a deeper dive when I can. Meantime, we’ve probably indulged this thread hijack long enough.