It's a loaded question within context the "Meet the Press" reporter was asking it.
He followed up with: “I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said,” he said, appearing to downplay the oath of office that includes a commitment to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”
House reps and senators also take an oath... per the article I linked before AOC wasn't the only one suggesting that a court ruling could/should be ignored.
Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said Friday he believes the Biden administration and the Food and Drug Administration have "the authority to ignore this ruling.”
“The FDA, doctors, and pharmacies can and must go about their jobs like nothing has changed"
H
ealth and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra did not dismiss the possibility of ignoring the court’s ruling... said “Everything is on the table. The president said that way back when the Dobbs decision came out. Every option is on the table,” Becerra said on CNN’s “State of the Union,”.
The sentiment by all of these folks (From Trump to AOC to Wyden to Becerra) was one that was questioning the concept of:
"Why should 1 solitary judge out of 900+ federal judges be able to put the brakes on an entire presidential agenda"
And it also raises the bigger question I've touched on before which is "forum shopping". There are lots of districts and judges. Finding a way to get ones case/objections in front of a "friendly judge" as a way of blocking the executive branch has been a sneaky trick that savvy lawyers and advocacy groups have been leveraging for quite some time.
As a little background on Forum Shopping:
What is Forum Shopping?
It’s when litigants (like advocacy groups, state attorneys general, or legal advocacy orgs) strategically file lawsuits in courts or judicial districts where they believe the judges are more likely to be sympathetic to their legal arguments or policy goals.
For example:
- If a conservative group wants to challenge a Biden administration environmental regulation, they might file in the Northern District of Texas, where several judges appointed by Republican presidents preside and have issued rulings favorable to conservative causes.
- Likewise, a progressive advocacy organization challenging a Trump-era immigration order might have preferred the Northern District of California, where courts have previously blocked federal immigration actions.
Why Does It Matter?
Because the federal judiciary is divided into 94 districts, each with its own set of judges, and early rulings — especially injunctions or temporary restraining orders (TROs) — can have national implications. If you win in a favorable court, you might get a nationwide injunction halting the presidential order while the case proceeds.
Recent notable examples:
- Challenges to Trump’s travel bans in 2017 were filed in districts like Hawaii and Washington state.
- Conservative groups challenging Biden’s student loan forgiveness filed in Texas and Missouri federal courts.
- Cases involving abortion pill restrictions were steered toward districts in Texas known for appointing conservative judges.
Is It Controversial?
Very. Critics argue it allows a single district judge to make decisions with nationwide effects, sometimes contrary to other courts. There’s been increasing debate — even among Supreme Court justices — about whether nationwide injunctions should be restricted
It should also be noted that several other developed nations have restrictions and structures in place to prevent that sneaky legal practice.
For example, Canada, France, Germany, UK, and Australia have court structures that make the practice of forum shopping (for federal matters) either impossible, or extremely rare.
