In some cases the executive can say, "You don't get to rule on that because Separation of Powers." That's what Sec. Rubio was trying to do. In other cases the rhetoric is similar: "The President has broad, inherent Article II authority to enact his policy," which is another separation-of-powers argument. This language is starting to appear in court filings, but the claimants don't say which specific part of Article II gives them the authority to do that specific thing. These are all at least trying to reason.
Now we're at the point where the executive is saying, in so many words, that it won't respect court opinions. Indeed, what do we do with a lawless executive? The constitutional order in the United States requires at least some fidelity to the institutional concepts of government. The Framers (perhaps naively) assumed that everyone would be an Instituitionalist to some degree. And this is where the Roberts Court is presently. The Chief Justice writes as if he still trusts the Trump administration to do things nobly by the book. His unwillingness to hold the administration accountable will be the stain on his tenure.
I doubt it. And it might just give Congressional Republicans more ammunition for impeachments.
In general you cannot hold the lawyers themselves liable unless they exercise discretion that is per se actionable. The lawyers represent the officers of government who are the decision-makers. Normally the court demands accountability from these parties by calling them as witnesses, placing them under oath, and making them individually accountable for the actions of the agencies they oversee. A lawyer representing the State Department in court is merely representing Sec. Rubio regardless of that lawyer's personal beliefs or sympathies. In the worst case, the Secretary of State can be called into court to give testimony regarding the lawfulness of his actions and may be held in contempt.
This is the impending crisis.
www.threads.com
