Arbitrarily searching and refusing foreign nationals at the border was always an executive power and we have temporarily chosen one who despises anyone not loyal to him. We get to reap the consequences for the next four years.
The extremely vague guidance was in part because SCOTUS only tries to rule on what is in front of them and also because they want any immunity decision to go through them.
Your posting here is akin to a boiling frog insisting to all the other frogs in the pot that they'll all know when the water is too hot, so they should not worry.
I just find that an obtuse response that completely looks past the post its responding to without even acknowledging that fact is a bit disingenuous but, I guess feel free to convince me otherwise if you'd like. I see a lot of your posts in this thread arguing how things will be okay and we aren't in a constitutional crisis yet but that doesn't seem to be a great response to the point that it looks like Trump is driving imminently towards one. Feel free to let me know what I'm missing.
I understand that my emphasizing a difference between 'driving toward a crisis' and being in the midst of one may seem like splitting hairs but I hope it isn't.
If you take Trump at his word, the crisis is certain. But he bloviates constantly. He might try to disassemble democracy or ignore a SCOTUS decision. But he might back down. He's in a pretty decent spot and it doesn't make sense to risk it all on a few deportations or civil service firings.
So I disagree with the certainty of a constitutional crisis and hope it sounds well-reasoned. Remember this is the guy who promised to fix the budget deficit, crime, immigration, healthcare...
To your original point, I reiterate that the immunity decision - while terrible - doesn't grant the president any additional powers. It simply allows him to test the limits of existing authorities without legal consequence. Ignoring court orders is still illegal and SCOTUS did not change that in Trump v. US. I am not sure why saying this "missed the point" unless the point was to underscore the urgency of the situation.
But mandamus orders against the executive really can't be enforced by the courts, not even the writ of Habeas Corpus -- and famously so, I might add, since Lincoln suspended the writ even though the Constitution says only Congress can do it, and he refused to bring people accused of sabotage or insurrection to the courts.
1. Executive power has limits. E.g. civil litigation and state law are largely outside his jurisdiction.
2. Agents of the government must follow the law, even if it contradicts an exective order. They open themselves to criminal liability if they don't.
3. Congress. Haha just kidding that's only in the timeline where Harambe is still alive.
2. Minions jailed for illegal activities
3. Pardon minions, law-abiding judicial forces to drop prosection
4. Go to 1