Actually, if you read the opinion, it is based solely on standing on ripeness grounds, and emphasizes quite strongly that the eo doesn’t actually require anything of the states.
I’m of mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, this sort of correct that as a general matter, the nature of an eo is that it doesn’t create binding obligations on anyone. It’s a directive to agencies to pursue policies, and it’s those outputs that are subject to challenge. On the other, there’s a lot of bending over backwards on construction (as, in fairness, there was at the district court in the other direction), and I’m not sure what the limiting principle is on the qualitative harm to the executive is. And yet on the other, Jackson’s dissent seems a bit like in my cousin Vinny in how she just seems to want to set process aside.
to my eye this had a feel of Gorsuch.
Last edited:
