Judges have been informed such oversteps are illegal, and they are finding out the consequences of being unconstitutional.

From a purely legal perspective, a judge saying something like that automatically nullifies the original EO anyway - as saying a later one has no authority is also saying the earlier one had no authority either. Trump was correct to ignore the criminal judges trying this - there is absolutely no legal writing they can point at giving them the authority to micromanage Executive Branch functions... and in fact it goes the other way legally. Anything Executive Branch does, per EPA V W.VA scotus decision, has to be explicitly written in law... so if a judge gets uppity the simplest answer is always "where does it say that in Congressionally written and passed law?" Either the law is written and President has the authority, or its an overstep like EPA and the original EO is null and void because law doesn't allow it.

I think the only well reasoned overrule of EOs this year was a judge that ruled already processed contracts had to be paid. President can still cancel future or current contracts, but that one was over existing past contracts not being paid which at least was on stable legal grounds. The various attempts to simply stop the Executive Branch from doing normal Executive Branch stuff has been legally ignorant to the point of malicious. No judge in existence is actually so stupid they actually think Judicial can control Executive as its literally defined at a toddler level in the Constitution as the basis of law in the US.

Judges have been informed such oversteps are illegal, and they are finding out the consequences of being unconstitutional.

From a purely legal perspective, a judge saying something like that automatically nullifies the original EO anyway - as saying a later one has no authority is also saying the earlier one had no authority either. Trump was correct to ignore the criminal judges trying this - there is absolutely no legal writing they can point at giving them the authority to micromanage Executive Branch functions... and in fact it goes the other way legally. Anything Executive Branch does, per EPA V W.VA scotus decision, has to be explicitly written in law... so if a judge gets uppity the simplest answer is always "where does it say that in Congressionally written and passed law?" Either the law is written and President has the authority, or its an overstep like EPA and the original EO is null and void because law doesn't allow it.

I think the only well reasoned overrule of EOs this year was a judge that ruled already processed contracts had to be paid. President can still cancel future or current contracts, but that one was over existing past contracts not being paid which at least was on stable legal grounds. The various attempts to simply stop the Executive Branch from doing normal Executive Branch stuff has been legally ignorant to teh point of malicious. No judge in existence is actually so stupid they actually think Judicial can control Executive as its literally defined at a toddler level in the Constitution as the basis of law in the US.

Judges have been informed such oversteps are illegal, and they are finding out the consequences of being unconstitutional.

From a purely legal perspective, a judge saying something like that automatically nullifies the original EO anyway - as saying a later one has no authority is also saying the earlier one had no authority either. Trump was correct to ignore the criminal judges trying this - there is absolutely no legal writing they can point at giving them the authority to micromanage Executive Branch functions... and in fact it goes the other way legally. Anything Executive Branch does, per EPA V W.VA scotus decision, has to be explicitly written in law... so if a judge gets uppity the simplest answer is always "where does it say that in Congressionally written and passed law?" Either the law is written and President has the authority, or its an overstep like EPA and the original EO is null and void because law doesn't allow it.

Judges have been informed such oversteps are illegal, and they are finding out the consequences of being unconstitutional.

From a purely legal perspective, a judge saying something like that automatically nullifies teh original EO anyway - as saying a later one has no authority is also saying the earlier one had no authority either.