Why don't major executive orders get run through the courts first before they are implemented?

[Quixote1818]

So Trump is going to do another revised "Muslim ban". The first one was a fucking mess! All kinds of good people had no idea what they were headed into and it turned out to be in-constitutional. So can he just put out another piece of shit, fuck up a bunch of lives and then have it possibly get turned over again? Not sure the founders thought this through completely or we just have a fucking idiot not using common sense and perhaps himself checking with the courts first.

[elleng]

1. Because until there has been an order, and a law violated or an aggrieved party exists,

there is no 'case or controversy' to present to the courts.

[Quixote1818]

4. So then it comes down to the President just being a decent, thoughtful person who does their

homework before doing something so far reaching. Unfortunately we have a fucking dick head at the wheel who doesn't think anything through and doesn't care if innocent people are hurt.

[elleng]

7. Right. Right.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Yup, pretty much.

[marybourg]

2. Most, but not all, courts have

to have a case or controversy in front of them in order to make a judgment.

Also - the executive power rests with the President, not the courts. Usually referred to as separation of powers

[meadowlander]

3. Competent policy makers get legal review.

But the policy can't be "run through the courts" if it doesn't exist yet. To go through the courts there have to be affected parties.

The issue is that Trump has 30 year old pinheads writing policies and then can't be bothered to wait for consultation, legal review or to forewarn affected agencies before he scrawls his black mess of a signature all over them.

[herding cats]

5. That's not how the system is set up.

Granted, they should be run past competent legal counsel before being signed, but even then if they violate case or controversy they move to the courts.

It's that whole "checks and balances" thing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Courts won't decide anything unless there's an actual case or controversy;

and they won't get involved in a legal question prematurely. It's called the doctrine of "ripeness."

"A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all." For example, if a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never applied, a case challenging that law lacks the ripeness necessary for a decision. The goal is to prevent premature adjudication; if a dispute is insufficiently developed, any potential injury or stake is too speculative to warrant judicial action. Ripeness issues most usually arise when a plaintiff seeks anticipatory relief . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripeness

There would also have to be identifiable plaintiffs who have suffered actual, identifiable harm. In the case involving the State of Washington, the WA AG had to show that his state was actually being harmed by the exclusion of certain immigrants, causing injury to state universities and students. Some of the cases in other federal courts were brought by individuals who were legal residents and had been unable to return to the US. So you have to have plaintiffs with standing.

There are supposed to be lawyers who review these things before they are issued; in normal administrations that would happen routinely. But you can't go to court to object to an EO that hasn't even been issued and is therefore not ripe for adjudication. There's no case to decide.

[Wounded Bear]

9. That's what his legal council is for...

and the Attorney General, and the Sec of DHS, and the Sec of State are for.

A real president checks with his staff that is supposed to let him know when he's off the reservation. Not much of that in the current WH.

[AJT]

10. I believe that is what the chief Whitehouse counsel is for.

[Lotusflower70]

11. I wonder

If he will ignore advice and guidance on it again and the lawyers will be ill-equipped to defend it. Also it is taking longer than initially stated. Could there be an actual review of it or more fighting over what to specifically include in it?