This is a federal judge doing their Constitutionally defined job - interpret law as written. Overturning the executive branch's constitutionally defined job is not.
The difference is law, and specifically the Constitution's well defined Separation Of Powers.
Executive orders are how the Executive Branch manages itself. Executive Branch doesn't make laws (and according to West Virginia VS EPA, executive agencies need to make sure they are enacting Congressionally passed laws, executive agencies can't make up new laws at random based on their opinions they must follow existing written law. This is important for agencies like the ATF where the agency has a history of writing "opinion letters" and enforcing them as if they were law to the point people are in prison over opinions that had never been codified into law.
Executive Branch is Constitutionally given full authority to hire and fire its own employees, and Congress writes laws the Executive Branch is supposed to enforce.
Trump issuing executive orders commanding executive agencies enforce existing law as written is his Constitutionally defined job. If Congress wants to change those laws, it can. If judges want to stop a law from existing, or stop the executive branch from doing its constitutionally defined job, they can't.
TLDR this judge is Constitutionally correct in doing his duty, whereas judges trying to usurp Executive branch power are not. This doesn't mean the ruling will stand - it can be appealed to higher courts who can reinterpret the ruling and this federal judge shouldn't be able to make a ruling that applies nationwide as they should only have authority over their represented district. But it does mean this judge is doing his legal duty as a judge interpreting existing law, unlike judges who are illegally doing unconstitutional things to try and overstep Judicial authority.
This is a federal judge doing their Constitutionally defined job - interpret law as written. Overturning the executive branch's constitutionally defined job is not.
The difference is law, and specifically the Constitution's well defined Separation Of Powers.
Executive orders are how the Executive Branch manages itself. Executive Branch doesn't make laws (and according to West Virginia VS EPA, executive agencies need to make sure they are enacting Congressionally passed laws, executive agencies can't make up new laws at random based on their opinions they must follow existing written law. This is important for agencies like the ATF where the agency has a history of writing "opinion letters" and enforcing them as if they were law to the point people are in prison over opinions that had never been codified into law. Executive Branch is Constitutionally given full authority to hire and fire its own employees, and Congress writes laws the Executive Branch is supposed to enforce.
Trump issuing executive orders commanding executive agencies enforce existing law as written is his Constitutionally defined job. If Congress wants to change those laws, it can. If judges want to stop a law from existing, or stop the executive branch from doing its constitutionally defined job, they can't.
TLDR this judge is Constitutionally correct in doing his duty, whereas judges trying to usurp Executive branch power are not. This doesn't mean the ruling will stand - it can be appealed to higher courts who can reinterpret the ruling and this federal judge shouldn't be able to make a ruling that applies nationwide as they should only have authority over their represented district. But it does mean this judge is doing his legal duty as a judge interpreting existing law, unlike judges who are illegally doing unconstitutional things to try and overstep Judicial authority.
Excellent argument, anon.