Right, so if I (and many reporters with much experience covering executive orders) read this correctly it was not vetted by the DOJ. It had the correct "formatting" of an executive order, but no check was performed by the OLC on whether it violates standing law.
I mean the DHS and other involved departments were also not consulted, so the idea that the DOJ got to weigh in on the legality is pretty strange/implausble.
Really? I read that as "in case you're wondering why I'm opposing it and the OLC didn't, this is..."
I guess it hinges on the scope of the "form and legality" review. There is an obvious conflict with the law that bans immigration rules based on country of origin. Did the OLC weigh that (or even constitutionality)? Or merely whether the preceding law that Trump's order cites, authorizes him to give the executive order?
I assumed the latter. We'll soon see how the legality of the order plays out in the courts anyway.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio...
Edit: Either way, my original blanket assumption that it had just not been looked at by the DOJ at all is clearly false as the OLC is a part of the DOJ.
She called out her role as different to explain why she doesn't agree with the OLC that it's legal.
My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted.