Importantly, as far as I can tell, from a purely constitutional perspective the supreme court has no more authority to direct any members of the executive branch to do anything than I do. Their only constitutional power is to call for federal officers to refuse to do something. Asking them to do anything proactive would go relatively clearly against their mandate.
In case nobody else has mentioned it: this is false, courts order actions all the time, e.g. ordering agencies to do stuff that they’re legally required to do. Ask your favorite chatbot.
I don’t think there is any authority here from a constitutionalist perspective? Like, the supreme court can order “the executive” to do something (and it might direct that order at a smaller part of the executive), but if the president disagrees, the constitution seems pretty clear that the job of the relevant executive agency would be to at most do nothing. Going directly against presidential orders and taking direct orders from the supreme court would be a pretty clear constitutional violation, at least as far as my understanding goes.
I would bet that lawyers, scholars, and chatbots would basically disagree with you. Your literal reading of the Constitution is less important than norms/practice.
My post is framed centrally as constitutionalist analysis, so I was trying to not get too bogged down in precedent and practicalities, which are just much harder to model (though of course the line here is blurry).
That said, after thinking and reading more about it, I still changed my mind at least a bit. The key thing I wasn’t modeling is the Supreme Court’s ability to declare injunctions against specific government officers, exposing them to more personal liability. Even if the executive doesn’t cooperate, the court can ask civilian institutions like banks to freeze their bank accounts or similar things, and my guess is many of them would comply.
I rewrote the relevant section to reflect my updated understanding. Let me know if anything still seems wrong by your lights.
In case nobody else has mentioned it: this is false, courts order actions all the time, e.g. ordering agencies to do stuff that they’re legally required to do. Ask your favorite chatbot.
I don’t think there is any authority here from a constitutionalist perspective? Like, the supreme court can order “the executive” to do something (and it might direct that order at a smaller part of the executive), but if the president disagrees, the constitution seems pretty clear that the job of the relevant executive agency would be to at most do nothing. Going directly against presidential orders and taking direct orders from the supreme court would be a pretty clear constitutional violation, at least as far as my understanding goes.
I would bet that lawyers, scholars, and chatbots would basically disagree with you. Your literal reading of the Constitution is less important than norms/practice.
My post is framed centrally as constitutionalist analysis, so I was trying to not get too bogged down in precedent and practicalities, which are just much harder to model (though of course the line here is blurry).
That said, after thinking and reading more about it, I still changed my mind at least a bit. The key thing I wasn’t modeling is the Supreme Court’s ability to declare injunctions against specific government officers, exposing them to more personal liability. Even if the executive doesn’t cooperate, the court can ask civilian institutions like banks to freeze their bank accounts or similar things, and my guess is many of them would comply.
I rewrote the relevant section to reflect my updated understanding. Let me know if anything still seems wrong by your lights.