Question for Legal Scholars re last clause in Biden's EO

[msfiddlestix]

I don't understand exactly what the very last text/clause means regarding the Executive Order

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

What does this apply to exactly? It struck me as contradicting the intention of the EO.

TIA

[Lettuce Be]

1. I read that to mean there is no "new" right or benefit being created

The rights and/or benefits already exist. Just my take. I am no legal anything.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Think of it as a reminder - the executive order is only meant to tell members

of the executive branch of the federal government (under the control of the President) what to do. It isn't to give any new rights to people outside of the executive branch of government including the right to sue members or departments of the government.

If you put that text into a search engine you'll see it's a standard part of many Executive Orders (It started appearing in Executive Orders years ago, I forget when).

[msfiddlestix]

8. gotcha, that makes sense. thanks. n/t

[rzemanfl]

3. I went to law school ages ago.

To me it means-"You can't successfully sue the government, or anybody else, if things don't work out for you the way you'd like them to under this order."

[TigressDem]

6. Ahhh. That makes sense. nt

[Farmer-Rick]

4. Yup.

It's my understanding that the clause is legaleez to make it clear it is Not a law. Only Congress (and now the Supreme Court, apparently) can pass or make laws.

[msfiddlestix]

11. This Supreme seeems to think, apparently!

I'd imagine Biden might have to counter SCOTUS with a slew of EO's before long..

[TigressDem]

5. I am not a lawyer, but it says, "AGAINST the US", so no EO can be used AGAINST the US.

Basically, it seems to state that whatever the aim of the EO it can not be used AGAINST anyone.

EO should be about establishing a better result somehow, not punitive in nature.


(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.



So maybe just a LOOPHOLE closing statement so that no one can use an EO to their own destructive means.

[msfiddlestix]

9. I see how that would be necessary to wall up against nefarious purposes

so easy to imagine these days...

thanks..

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. I think the key phrase is "by any party against the United States"

It looks to be a liability limiting clause.

[msfiddlestix]

10. thanks for clarifying.. it was rather confusing in terms of intent of the EO (to me)

[WhiskeyGrinder]

12. It's boilerplate for EOs and means this order does not create a right you can sue for.

It's an order, not a law.

[msfiddlestix]

13. ✔️

I have been under the misunderstanding that EO's were virtually a law overriding any existing laws until it's "removed" or cancelled by a different President.