Does the executive branch have an obligation to obey court rulings? (1 Viewer)

[Slartibartfast]

So, in order to sue, you must be able to demonstrate that you have "standing" - a clear connection and harm from the action or law being challenged.

It turns out that when the issue at stake is "The President is spending funds that haven't been authorized by Congress", that can be exceedingly difficult to do. Recipients aren't harmed. Those who are generally harmed (taxpayers who will have to eventually make up the difference, Congress, whose authority has been usurped, etc.) don't have "standing" to sue in such a case.

And as SCOTUSBlog and we here discussed at the time:

The challengers – six states with Republican attorneys general and two individuals with student loans — had urged the justices to strike down the debt-relief plan, arguing that it does not comply with the HEROES Act and other federal laws. But before the court could reach that question, it had to determine whether any of the challengers had a legal right to sue, known as standing.​

and:



Under the HEROES act, because non-federal lenders were involved, it was possible for someone to demonstrate Standing, and so, while the STATES (because they had given out loans under that program) were found to have standing, while the individuals who had filed were found to not have standing.

What the Biden administration did in switching from the HEROES Act to the PLSF was not "cease to act lawlessly in ignoring SCOTUS' check on the Presidential power", it was "change how they acted lawlessly in ignoring SCOTUS' check on Presidential power by making sure nobody had the ability to demonstrate the Standing necessary to sue". In such an instance, the only corrective in our system for a President violating the law or the Constitution by spending unappropriated funds is "Impeachment".

Which is how it survived those Legal Challenges you (@Slartibartfast) mention:

...Plaintiffs have not shown a redressable injury caused by Defendants, so their Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for lacking Article III standing and their Motion will be denied as moot...​

They basically found a way to ignore the SCOTUS ruling in such a way that it would take impeachment to stop them, secure in the knowledge that impeachment wouldn't happen.

...which is kind of exactly what we are worried that the Trump administration is also going to do. :-/

That is a mischaracterization I believe and it should be looked at less in terms of sweepings principles and more in terms of legal transactions.

One set of transactions under one law was found illegal. A different set of transactions under a different law is an entirely independent consideration which was not found illegal. You cannot credibly apply legal justification from one to another unless you are looking for something to complain about as there was not scotus ruling in this use of the PLSF, which is what people tend to do with the forgiveness question. The standing question is irrelevant to that.

Lots of administrations try different legal justifications to do what they want to do. Some pass courts and some don’t. The legal landscape is complicated so there is room to do that. This is not unusual, hence my point about segregating the military.

This passage from the decision shows what I mean:

“The HEROES Act provides no authorization for the Secretary’s plan even when examined using the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation—let alone ‘clear congressional authorization’ for such a sweeping and significant action.”

 

[coyote505]

I believe they have an obligation to adhere to court rulings.

I also believe that our system of governance provides for no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance.

Trump's Presidential idol is Andrew Jackson. The Supreme Court found his ethnic cleansing of the Cherokee illegal under our treaty with them. Jackson said that the Supreme Court had ruled, now let them enforce it, and continued his war crime

 

[cpwill]

That is a mischaracterization I believe and it should be looked at less in terms of sweepings principles and more in terms of legal transactions.

Respectfully, since what we are discussing here is "Does X violate the Constitutional limits of the President's powers", we can't simply dismiss the forest for the tree.

For example:

One set of transactions under one law was found illegal. A different set of transactions under a different law is an entirely independent consideration which was not found illegal. You cannot credibly apply legal justification from one to another unless you are looking for something to complain about as there was not scotus ruling in this use of the PLSF, which is what people tend to do with the forgiveness question. The standing question is irrelevant to that.

As already cited for you, that claim is incorrect both in principle and in particular practice, because it is explicitly the standing question that does not allow the Judiciary to rule on the case. When someone did have standing, SCOTUS did rule on this claim of Presidential power - and they found it (correctly) violated the scope of his power.

President's have the ability to ignore and violate SCOTUS Rulings after they are issued, and before SCOTUS says for a second time that they have done so. They are not magically somehow transmorgified back in compliance when they do so, even when we approve of the desired policy outcome.

* Mind you, Joe Biden also meets that burden, as that is exactly what he did with regards to the eviction moratorium.


One good way to think through Constitutional Mechanics questions like these are to ask "What would I think if this was someone I didn't like exercising this power in this way to achieve a policy outcome I disapproved of?"

For example, ask yourself what you would think if Trump declared he had the right to change tax law without Congress. He tries to increase taxes on industries he doesn't like ("woke" hollywood, or some such). They sue, and SCOTUS declares that Trump doesn't have the right to raise taxes because the Constitution puts the tax power in the hands of Congress (Article I Section 8 Clause 1).

So instead, Trump goes out and cuts taxes for favored industries or entities, again without Congress. In this case, however, no one has standing (who is harmed by paying less in taxes?), and so no one can sue him... so he can't get overturned by SCOTUS.

Does that mean that the tax power is somehow moved from Article I to Article II in the Constitution, but only for reductions (as increases would produce standing)? Would you accept anyone standing behind the claim that the inability of anyone to sue meant that it had made such a shift?



Trump's opponents (whom I count myself among) have a bad habit of delegitimizing our critiques by making excuses when other actors whom we dislike less (or actively support) take similar actions. When we do so, we normalize his behavior, and convince middle-observers that our critiques are the result of our partisanship, rather than his actions. Democrats' (and others) refusal to deal with their own scandals ends up protecting Trump from the effects of his own.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Respectfully, since what we are discussing here is "Does X violate the Constitutional limits of the President's powers", we can't simply dismiss the forest for the tree.

For example:



As already cited for you, that claim is incorrect both in principle and in particular practice, because it is explicitly the standing question that does not allow the Judiciary to rule on the case. When someone did have standing, SCOTUS did rule on this claim of Presidential power - and they found it (correctly) violated the scope of his power.

President's have the ability to ignore and violate SCOTUS Rulings after they are issued, and before SCOTUS says for a second time that they have done so. They are not magically somehow transmorgified back in compliance when they do so, even when we approve of the desired policy outcome.

* Mind you, Joe Biden also meets that burden, as that is exactly what he did with regards to the eviction moratorium.


One good way to think through Constitutional Mechanics questions like these are to ask "What would I think if this was someone I didn't like exercising this power in this way to achieve a policy outcome I disapproved of?"

For example, ask yourself what you would think if Trump declared he had the right to change tax law without Congress. He tries to increase taxes on industries he doesn't like ("woke" hollywood, or some such). They sue, and SCOTUS declares that Trump doesn't have the right to raise taxes because the Constitution puts the tax power in the hands of Congress (Article I Section 8 Clause 1).

So instead, Trump goes out and cuts taxes for favored industries or entities, again without Congress. In this case, however, no one has standing (who is harmed by paying less in taxes?), and so no one can sue him... so he can't get overturned by SCOTUS.

Does that mean that the tax power is somehow moved from Article I to Article II in the Constitution, but only for reductions (as increases would produce standing)? Would you accept anyone standing behind the claim that the inability of anyone to sue meant that it had made such a shift?



Trump's opponents (whom I count myself among) have a bad habit of delegitimizing our critiques by making excuses when other actors whom we dislike less (or actively support) take similar actions. When we do so, we normalize his behavior, and convince middle-observers that our critiques are the result of our partisanship, rather than his actions. Democrats' (and others) refusal to deal with their own scandals ends up protecting Trump from the effects of his own.

I completely disagree with what you believe is the scope of the discussion. I think it’s about what I stated.

I can’t even entertain your scope because I disagree with the inherent assumptions of that scope.

 

[cpwill]

I completely disagree with what you believe is the scope of the discussion. I think it’s about what I stated.

I can’t even argue from your scope because I disagree with the inherent assumptions of that scope.

Unfortunately, it is the Judiciary who you disagree with, rather than merely ole cpwill.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Unfortunately, it is the Judiciary who you disagree with, rather than merely ole cpwill.

The judiciary did not rule on using PLSF so I don’t see where you can make that claim.

 

[cpwill]

The judiciary did not rule on using PLSF so I don’t see where you can make that claim.

Because it was the Judiciary who said that the standing question is what kept them from being able to rule on the merits of the thing they had already said Biden couldn't do.

...Plaintiffs have not shown a redressable injury caused by Defendants, so their Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for lacking Article III standing and their Motion will be denied as moot...​

Biden did something that SCOTUS said was beyond his powers, but he (or, rather, his staff) did it in such a away as to deny anyone standing, because they couldn't show a redressable injury, meaning he couldn't be stopped by anything short of Impeachment (which they knew was not a threat).

* If I might point out, "You can get away with anything you like so long as it doesn't cause Congress to successfully impeach and remove you from power" might not be the standard we want to apply to the Presidency right now.​

Which is why I asked what you would think of Trump declaring he had the right to lower taxes on favored industries, entities, income brackets, etc. It would be the same power claim (to spend non-appropriated funds by denying owed dues) in the same scenario (if no one has a redressable injury, no one has standing to sue, and so his claim of power can't be overturned in Court).

 

[Slartibartfast]

Because it was the Judiciary who said that the standing question is what kept them from being able to rule on the merits of the thing they had already said Biden couldn't do.

...Plaintiffs have not shown a redressable injury caused by Defendants, so their Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for lacking Article III standing and their Motion will be denied as moot...​

Biden did something that SCOTUS said was beyond his powers, but he (or, rather, his staff) did it in such a away as to deny anyone standing, because they couldn't show a redressable injury, meaning he couldn't be stopped by anything short of Impeachment (which they knew was not a threat).

* If I might point out, "You can get away with anything you like so long as it doesn't cause Congress to successfully impeach and remove you from power" might not be the standard we want to apply to the Presidency right now.​

Which is why I asked what you would think of Trump declaring he had the right to lower taxes on favored industries, entities, income brackets, etc. It would be the same power claim (to spend non-appropriated funds by denying owed dues) in the same scenario (if no one has a redressable injury, no one has standing to sue, and so his claim of power can't be overturned in Court).

We’re still working on the first question where I am not convinced that Nebraska vs Biden was about student loans in general and not specifically about the heroes act.

 

[cpwill]

We’re still working on the first question where I am not convinced that Nebraska vs Biden was about student loans in general and not specifically about the heroes act.

I am confused as to what you are pointing to, then. The first question was solved in Nebraska v Biden. The Biden administration decided - in his own words - that the Supreme Court had blocked the thing they were doing, but that they hadn't let it stop them from doing so anyway. When they re-issued the order, they did so in a way as to deny anyone standing to sue, meaning they could not be overturned in the court merely on the merits of doing what they declared they were doing after the Supreme Court had blocked it.

You declared the standing issue irrelevant - the court said explicitly otherwise.

Retreating to a position of "Because no one can sue I guess we'll never know if the President doing something that he publicly stated was against the SCOTUS ruling was in fact against a SCOTUS ruling" does not obviate any of that data.

I hope you will forgive me if I suspect you would (correctly!) not extend this kind of excuse to similar abuses by Donald Trump.​

But it's worth re-asking the question, to see if you are, in fact, at least, consistent on this point: What you would think of Trump declaring he had the right to lower taxes on favored industries, entities, income brackets, etc.? The same power-claim (to spend non-appropriated funds by denying owed dues) in the same structure (if no one has a redressable injury, no one has standing to sue, and so the claim of presidential power can't be overturned in Court).



Out of curiosity, do you also try to defend Biden's ignoring the Supreme Court's declaration that his action was unlawful in the case of the Eviction Moratorium?

 

[Felis Leo]

Simple question.

No. The United States President is not obligated to follow Federal Court rulings, because he is the enforcer of the law. Nowhere is it written in the Constitution that the Executive shall follow the written rulings of the Court. And even if he were, who but he would enforce the obligation against himself?

Now, if he does not, he could easily be considered an outlaw and even a tyrant. But at that point, Congress would need to impeach him. Of course, our Constitution was written by men who did not foresee the rise of national political parties and collusion among the branches to grant the chief executive nigh-dictatorial power. But that is the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in.

 

[Felis Leo]

Yes, the Executive Branch has an obligation to obey Court Rulings.

That's why it was such a damaging precedent when "after the Supreme Court struck down Biden’s student loan “forgiveness” plan as unconstitutional in Biden v. Nebraska, the president tried again. “Early in my term, I announced a major plan to provide millions of working families with debt relief for their college student debt,” he bragged. “The Supreme Court blocked it. But that didn’t stop me.”​

And similar with other issues:

Joe Biden may have humanitarian motives for extending the Centers for Disease Control eviction ban that the Supreme Court has already deemed unlawful. But it is both bad constitutional law and bad constitutional politics to flout the court’s judgment — especially because Justice Brett Kavanaugh had already cast a compromise vote intended to allow the ban to stay in place until Congress could extend it.​

​

The justices will rapidly reject the extension, and its enduring symbolism won’t be that of helping people but of alienating the court and its new swing justice, Brett Kavanaugh. If Donald Trump had done something like this, liberals would be justifiably worried that he was undermining the rule of law....​

Well, let us not pretend that this gave Donald Trump the breathing room to engage in total lawlessness. Even if Biden had followed all the Supreme Court's rulings both in spirit and to the letter, Donald Trump would be doing the same thing he is now.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I am confused as to what you are pointing to, then. The first question was solved in Nebraska v Biden. The Biden administration decided - in his own words - that the Supreme Court had blocked the thing they were doing, but that they hadn't let it stop them from doing so anyway. When they re-issued the order, they did so in a way as to deny anyone standing to sue, meaning they could not be overturned in the court merely on the merits of doing what they declared they were doing after the Supreme Court had blocked it.

You declared the standing issue irrelevant - the court said explicitly otherwise.

Retreating to a position of "Because no one can sue I guess we'll never know if the President doing something that he publicly stated was against the SCOTUS ruling was in fact against a SCOTUS ruling" does not obviate any of that data.

I hope you will forgive me if I suspect you would (correctly!) not extend this kind of excuse to similar abuses by Donald Trump.​

But it's worth re-asking the question, to see if you are, in fact, at least, consistent on this point: What you would think of Trump declaring he had the right to lower taxes on favored industries, entities, income brackets, etc.? The same power-claim (to spend non-appropriated funds by denying owed dues) in the same structure (if no one has a redressable injury, no one has standing to sue, and so the claim of presidential power can't be overturned in Court).



Out of curiosity, do you also try to defend Biden's ignoring the Supreme Court's declaration that his action was unlawful in the case of the Eviction Moratorium?

The main issue here is your framing and assumption that Biden defied the court when he no longer pursued loan forgiveness under the heroes act and moved to a different legal question (whether he can forgive under the plsf). The two are not related

I can’t even begin to address the consistency question due to it relying on what I view as poor framing when I clearly stated in an earlier post what I see as defying court looks like (bottom paragraph post 24) which is not consistent with your question. I view defying the courts is doing something that is explicitly ruled against. That has not happened since Jackson in the 1800s.

 

[cpwill]

Well, let us not pretend that this gave Donald Trump the breathing room to engage in total lawlessness. Even if Biden had followed all the Supreme Court's rulings both in spirit and to the letter, Donald Trump would be doing the same thing he is now.

It does indeed expand his breathing room (it does not "give" "total" - this isn't a binary question, but one of an expanding overton window of allowable Presidential abuse), because it sets precedent, and allows him to point to the support of Biden's abuses by his critics to shield him from criticism of his own.

Trump has not (yet!) done what Biden did. If he does, then he will deserve impeachment, just as Biden did. And, if he does, I expect the partisans in here that defended Biden's actions to be very upset about Trump's, just as I expect the other partisans in here that were furious at Biden's abuses to try to defend Trump's, and I will just be mad and disgusted with everyone again .

 

[Absentglare]

Unfortunately, it is the Judiciary who you disagree with, rather than merely ole cpwill.

Damn man, you are setting yourself up for one rude awakening.

 

[Absentglare]

It does indeed expand his breathing room (it does not "give" "total" - this isn't a binary question, but one of an expanding overton window of allowable Presidential abuse), because it sets precedent, and allows him to point to the support of Biden's abuses by his critics to shield him from criticism of his own.

Trump has not (yet!) done what Biden did. If he does, then he will deserve impeachment, just as Biden did. And, if he does, I expect the partisans in here that defended Biden's actions to be very upset about Trump's, just as I expect the other partisans in here that were furious at Biden's abuses to try to defend Trump's, and I will just be mad and disgusted with everyone again .

Yikes, do you not know JD Vance explicitly promoted ignoring the courts?

Or are you not interested in actually being correct, only in patting yourself on the back for being supposedly above partisanship?

 

[NolanVoyd]

Trump has not (yet!) done what Biden did.

What is it you think Biden did?

and hiw do you figure Trump has not (yet) done anything impeachable?

please explain.

 

[Lursa]

No. The United States President is not obligated to follow Federal Court rulings, because he is the enforcer of the law. Nowhere is it written in the Constitution that the Executive shall follow the written rulings of the Court. And even if he were, who but he would enforce the obligation against himself?

Now, if he does not, he could easily be considered an outlaw and even a tyrant. But at that point, Congress would need to impeach him. Of course, our Constitution was written by men who did not foresee the rise of national political parties and collusion among the branches to grant the chief executive nigh-dictatorial power. But that is the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in.

Interesting. He is the enforcer of the law but not the creator of law (Congress) or the Const, nor does he interpret the Const to clarify/substantiate law (Judiciary).

Where is he given license to determine law? Your 2nd paragraph seems to address that but then that means the president is obligated to follow court rulings (the law as they determine).

 

[cpwill]

The main issue here is your framing and assumption that Biden defied the court when he no longer pursued loan forgiveness under the heroes act and moved to a different legal question (whether he can forgive under the plsf). The two are not related

Again, that is incorrect, as both are claiming the same broad power (to spend unappropriated funds), and the second merely took steps to ensure that impeachment was the only possible check.

Whether or not a President can be sued is not the marker of whether or not a President has abused his power.

Which is why I keep asking how you would apply the rules you are proposing in the instance that Trump decided to unilaterally lower taxes on favored groups.... and, I guess, why you keep refusing to address that point (that the rules you are insisting on would, if consistently applied, produce obviously unConstitional results).

I can’t even begin to address the consistency question due to it relying on what I view as poor framing when I clearly stated in an earlier post what I see as defying court looks like (bottom paragraph post 24) which is not consistent with your question. I view defying the courts is doing something that is explicitly ruled against. That has not happened since Jackson in the 1800s.

I believe you are referring to this:

The concern is that the trump administration will just do something anyway without bothering to find a new legal justification.

Which, respectfully, would also be incorrect, as that was the Biden Administration's response to SCOTUS declaring that it's Eviction Moratorium was unlawful (as I have pointed out at least twice now).

Damn man, you are setting yourself up for one rude awakening.

Literally cited the court ruling.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Again, that is incorrect, as both are claiming the same broad power (to spend unappropriated funds), and the second merely took steps to ensure that impeachment was the only possible check.

Whether or not a President can be sued is not the marker of whether or not a President has abused his power.

Which is why I keep asking how you would apply the rules you are proposing in the instance that Trump decided to unilaterally lower taxes on favored groups.... and, I guess, why you keep refusing to address that point (that the rules you are insisting on would, if consistently applied, produce obviously unConstitional results).



I believe you are referring to this:



Which, respectfully, would also be incorrect, as that was the Biden Administration's response to SCOTUS declaring that it's Eviction Moratorium was unlawful (as I have pointed out at least twice now).



Literally cited the court ruling.

I guess I will agree to disagree. Otherwise this will just drag on and not get anywhere like the last discussion.

Toodles.

 

[cpwill]

I guess I will agree to disagree. Otherwise this will just drag on and not get anywhere like the last discussion.

Toodles.

Fair enough Hope you have a Good week.

 

[cpwill]

What is it you think Biden did?

On two occasions attempted to ignore / override SCOTUS rulings - the first attempt was unsuccessful, and the second, succeeded.

and how do you figure Trump has not (yet) done anything impeachable?

Impeachment is a political act, not a legal one (ie, the President does not need to have violated Constitutional or Statutory law for Congress to impeach and remove him).

I supported both Trump impeachments during his first administration. The amount of surprise I will have if I end up supporting impeachment again will be so close to "zero" as to be indistinguishable. However, Trump's actions to date during his second administration do not yet merit impeachment. "The President is a moron and pursuing terrible policies" is not grounds - I think - for impeaching and removing him. The American people bought the ticket and they get to take the ride.

please explain.

Hope that helped

 

[cpwill]

Yikes, do you not know JD Vance explicitly promoted ignoring the courts?

Or are you not interested in actually being correct, only in patting yourself on the back for being supposedly above partisanship?

I'm aware of what Vance has said (and it was stupid and destructive, as it was when AOC did the same) , but - and, this is important - when it comes to judging the actions of Trump, prefer to judge the actions of Trump, rather than the stupid things his VP says. Whether or not Biden deserves to get impeached is not determined by whether or not AOC said stupid and destructive things about ignoring Judges, and whether or not Trump deserves to get impeached is not determined by whether or not Vance - for all that he is at least VP and in the administration - has said stupid and destructive things about ignoring Judges.

Trump deserves to get impeached based on what he does or fails to do. He has not (yet) gone as far as Biden did in ignoring or attempting to ride roughshod over the Court. I won't be astonished if he does so, but, he's not there yet, and if we want to honestly and credibly critique him when he does, then we need to be fair about upholding the standards we want to uphold then when we describe and judge other's actions now.


Think about it - if someone whom you know to be a hard core MAGA supporter complains in 2028 that the Democrat candidate shouldn't be President because they insult other people, and that's rude.... how credible is that complaint going to be, coming from them?

 

[NolanVoyd]

On two occasions attempted to ignore / override SCOTUS rulings - the first attempt was unsuccessful, and the second, succeeded.

Nonsense.

He did no such thing.

He was overruled so he re worked his policy so that the concerns were addressed.

Every president does that.

Fact Check: Did Biden ignore Supreme Court over student loan forgiveness?

Republican Representative Jim Jordan said Biden had ignored a Supreme Court ruling on student loan forgiveness.

www.newsweek.com

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

 

[Absentglare]

I'm aware of what Vance has said (and it was stupid and destructive, as it was when AOC did the same) , but - and, this is important - when it comes to judging the actions of Trump, prefer to judge the actions of Trump, rather than the stupid things his VP says. Whether or not Biden deserves to get impeached is not determined by whether or not AOC said stupid and destructive things about ignoring Judges, and whether or not Trump deserves to get impeached is not determined by whether or not Vance - for all that he is at least VP and in the administration - has said stupid and destructive things about ignoring Judges.

Trump deserves to get impeached based on what he does or fails to do. He has not (yet) gone as far as Biden did in ignoring or attempting to ride roughshod over the Court. I won't be astonished if he does so, but, he's not there yet, and if we want to honestly and credibly critique him when he does, then we need to be fair about upholding the standards we want to uphold then when we describe and judge other's actions now.


Think about it - if someone whom you know to be a hard core MAGA supporter complains in 2028 that the Democrat candidate shouldn't be President because they insult other people, and that's rude.... how credible is that complaint going to be, coming from them?

I mean, the VP literally shared his plan to destroy democracy. And they’re following that plan, right now.

Trump is acting in service of the new Russian empire. Those are actions we see being taken to hurt Ukraine. Trump is using the office of the president to attack the allies of the United States of America, and to strengthen the enemies of the United States of America. Trump’s actions to usurp the 2020 election result are well-documented.

You seek to ignore, excuse, and diminish all of those actions. Trump is orchestrating a coup, he is isolating the US from its allies, he is inflicting terror on domestic interests in order to control them (see: Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Dr Fauci, Hunter Biden, Judge Merchan, Judge McConnell, etc.), he is recklessly dismantling the federal government, and I could go on.

But perhaps you’d like to pretend that the fact that my post renders a strong judgement, you’d like to suggest that it’s partisan and therefore biased, ergo it is worth less than your superior opinion that is (magically?) free from bias. Or perhaps you could understand bias comes from a mismatch between judgement and evidence, rather than nullifying any judgement that makes republicans look bad and pretending that’s somehow morally superior.

 

[Revelation]

This is what we call checks and balances.

I doubt the Founders and Framers envisioned a president and the executive branch above the law.

if we can look to the future, the Orange must operate far above the Law to accomplish the goals of Dark Maga. besides that the Supreme Court says that the prez has a Liability shield as long as he is acting 'in the public good'.

more or less has a blank check to create the future American Technate from sea to shining sea.

...this logo might even make a good flag once the American Technocracy is moving at full steam; watch dark maga pull this one off far above the reach of the Law.


.

.