7

Trump just released a new executive order, very similar to the old. The old order (13769) has been stopped by the courts.

Is the administration defending the old order still, or are they ignoring it and going forward with just the new?

15

No, the old travel ban (EC 13769) is revoked and the Justice Department has dismissed its appeal of the Seattle federal court ruling.


Executive Order 13769 is revoked as stated in the last few lines of the new executive order (13780):

Sec. 13. Revocation. Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017, is revoked as of the effective date of this order.


In addition, the Department of Justice has dismissed its appeal of the Seattle federal court ruling that suspended the first order (13769) on Tuesday.

As reported by Reuters:

The U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday said it would voluntarily dismiss its own appeal of a Seattle federal court ruling that had suspended President Donald Trump's first executive order concerning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    I'm assuming that means that the answer to the titular question is "No, they don't have to. It isn't a thing anymore so the courts can't rule on it." Is that correct? If so, couldn't the POTUS cycle between giving [potentially] illegal executive orders, waiting for them to get to court, revoking them and then giving slightly different executive orders? – Pants Mar 9 '17 at 14:52
  • I am not politically-savvy in the least bit and I am expecting the answer to my above comment to be related to the answer, but if it is deserving of its own question, I'm happy to ask one. – Pants Mar 9 '17 at 14:53
  • 2
    @Pants legally? there's nothing stopping him, but there's also nothing legally stopping the House of Representatives from moving to impeach him – USER_8675309 Mar 9 '17 at 14:55
  • 2
    @USER_8675309 Well that's not really true. "Impeachment in the United States is an enumerated power of the legislature that allows formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States - They'd have to figure out an actual crime he's committed... being unpopular and/or controversial is not a crime. – SnakeDoc Mar 9 '17 at 17:08
  • 1
    @snakedoc "alleged to have been committed" is the key phrase here. They don't need to figure out an actual crime. Additionally, in the past congress has impeached an official based on past crimes committed, so it is not limited to actions Trump has made while in office: fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf – USER_8675309 Mar 9 '17 at 17:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .