The White House has its own office of legal counsel which has stated the order is legal. The AG ignored the legality of the order when making the decisions that led to firing.

A law or executive action can be illegal on its face, or as illegal applied. OLC reviews executive orders before they are signed. The AG generally has to defend the orders in court, as applied. Depending on what happens on the ground, the AG can be stuck defending actions the OLC would not have signed off on. And in any case, when the AG is in court its her signature on the papers. If the judge doesn't think her interpretation is made in good faith, the judge doesn't care what OLC said.

For example (and this is speculation), I have doubts that the OLC signed off on excluding permanent residents without individualized process. The order does not, by its terms, apply to permanent residents. But that is how CBP interpreted it for three days, and the White House reversed that position only last night. The AG would have to go into court and defend CBP's interpretation, and I don't think it is defensible. Indeed, it's so indefensible that I think there is a decent chance individual CBP agents will be held personally liable for Constitutional violations once this all plays out.

That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying that part of the process.

It's worth noting that the Office of Legal Counsel 1) is responsible for producing wild contortions of logic to produce anything resembling a legal defense of any of a president's chosen actions (e.g. torture), and 2) is actually part of the Department of Justice and therefore reports to the attorney general.

> The AG ignored the legality of the order

Just because legal counsel says its legal does not mean it is legal, or that the AG "ignored its legality". Different attorneys will have different frameworks and theories on whether it will hold up in court.