It was less than a week ago George Stephanopoulos actually cut off and ended an interview with JD Vance when he suggested a hypothetical scenario in which Trump could refuse to enforce a supreme court order, if the supreme court blatantly disregarded a constitutional provision. The thought train was, Trump could fire all his bureaucracy, and what if the Supreme Court said Trump couldn't fire a general, even though the president clearly has plenary power to appoint and fire generals in the constitution? And this would lead to an obvious constitutional crisis, but not an unprecedented one. There are definitely previous examples in American history where presidents ran up against the supreme court and challenged their authority, like Ex Parte Merryman. At the end of the day, the supreme court has no enforcement power, only judicial decisionmaking. Its left squarely to the execute branch to see the law faithfully enforced, and the executive could abdicate that responsibility or challenge the supreme court with it. And when it comes to that showdown, the separation of powers doesn't give any side clear authority- its up to congress to rein in an executive, and if they don't?
So here's hawaii, directly challenging the supreme court. Except they have no actual authority here, and its not a separation of power issue. Its up to Biden to actually enforce the law, and boy he's no andrew jackson