The Supreme Court has the power to overturn the president’s executive orders, but what would happen if a president’s constitutional authority to make those orders was violated?
The Washington Post/Getty ImagesWhat if the justices didn’t feel there was a strong case to overturn President Donald Trump’s executive order that temporarily suspended the country’s refugee program?
What if they were not convinced by the administration’s arguments that the order was necessary to protect the nation from terrorism?
The Post/AP is examining these and other questions that are emerging as the Supreme, as well as the president, grapple with their responsibilities under the Constitution.
What if, instead, they felt that the president had the legal authority to enact a travel ban?
What if the court was swayed by arguments by Trump’s lawyers and the president himself that he had no legal authority for his executive order?
What would that look like?
The president would have the legal power to enforce the travel ban, but it would not be his sole responsibility.
The president’s office would be free to appeal the court’s decision.
The administration would be allowed to keep certain immigration benefits that have been set to expire on March 16.
The White House would be able to extend those benefits for a maximum of six months and, in some cases, until March 28.
The Supreme would have to agree to a compromise to preserve those benefits, which would likely include reinstating some of the protections that were already set to end on March 28 and extending the extension.
The president would be required to publish a notice to the public announcing that the government will resume the benefits.
If that notice fails to include the name of the government, it would be published under the headline, “FINAL ORDER ON TERRORISM AND VIOLENCE.”
The Supreme Court would be notified of any such announcement and would have 30 days to decide whether to uphold the decision or reverse it.
The government would be forced to immediately notify all affected countries that the administration would suspend or resume the immigration benefits, and the United States would have until April 15 to begin its new refugee program.
The Supreme would be in the position of deciding whether to order the administration to restore or resume those immigration benefits.
What would the court do in a case where the government had not complied with a court order, such as the one Trump announced on Friday that the country would not allow Syrian refugees into the country?
If the court ruled that the U.S. did not have a valid legal basis for halting the refugee program, then the court would have broad authority to order Trump to resume it, or order the government to suspend it.
The courts could order the order to go forward without delay.
What if a court ruling conflicted with the administration and the President made the wrong call?
What about the president making a mistake, such that he violated a court’s order, and then reversing himself?
Would the president have the authority to resume the program or the executive order, or would he be required by law to do so?
What kind of sanctions would Congress impose on the executive branch if the president were to be found to have violated the court order?
The courts would have power to impose a range of sanctions on the administration, including an injunction to prevent the government from carrying out the executive orders for 60 days, a freeze on the use of U.A.E. funds, and an emergency financial freeze.
In some cases that would require Congress to enact legislation.
If Congress enacted such a law, the government would have 60 days to file a response to it with the Supreme.
If Congress failed to enact such a bill, then Congress could seek a new court order.
The government would then have 60 to 90 days to respond to the court, if that’s what Congress wanted to do.
If the court rules that Congress failed in its duty to provide the President with the authority needed to carry out the president of the United State’s executive powers, then that would be a serious legal issue.
It could lead to significant changes in U.N. Refugee Convention provisions that have long protected refugees from persecution and would affect U.
Ns ability to respond appropriately to other crises, including natural disasters.
What would the Supreme Courts say if the executive was able to unilaterally suspend the executive travel ban and reopen it after the 60-day period had expired?
What would happen when Congress fails to enact any sanctions or a new executive order to halt the travel and refugee program and Congress does not act?
The president’s lawyers would argue that Congress is within its rights to block the executive from suspending or reopening the program.
But the courts would disagree.
The Constitution requires Congress to give a two-thirds majority to enact laws that affect the executive.
If a Congress is unable to give that two-third majority, then it cannot block the president from enacting the executive action that Congress passed.
If that fails, then courts could issue a stay of the executive actions until a new ruling can be issued.
But courts would likely consider the case carefully and determine whether Congress has the authority under the