Yes, it does. Because it draws a clear line in the sand. The administration can choose to disobey the order, but that opens up individuals in the govt to potential prosecution later. That's why governments try fairly hard to go the legal route or at least maintain a fig leaf of explanations, however implausible.
The supreme court might have declared the president to be immune for official acts, but that doesn't extend to govt officials blatantly choosing contempt of court. They have practical immunity in the current administration. A future administration might not look so kindly on such actions.
Hmmm, I think a "pardon factory" would counter that.
(not supporting anything about the current strategy... just pointing out that the "line in the sand" doesn't imply that any individuals would actually get in trouble)
Yeah, but then you're depending on a notoriously fickle and unreliable person wanting or remembering to do that when the time comes. Sure, if you're a true believer in the cause you'll take that risk, but a majority of the people in any administration are opportunists, not ideologues.
Even though Trump threw pretty much everybody from his previous administration under the bus, there was no shortage of new volunteers willing to take their chances.
This is the guy who bussed people from parking to his rally, but then declined to also get them from the rally back to parking. Seems like depending on a pardon down the road is a risky move.
Yes, but even then, as an official, you don't know if you'll be sure to get one. A court ruling significantly increases the risk of wilful disobedience for officials and hence dramatically lowers the probability of being ignored.
The supreme court might have declared the president to be immune for official acts, but that doesn't extend to govt officials blatantly choosing contempt of court. They have practical immunity in the current administration. A future administration might not look so kindly on such actions.