The chamber voted 248-181 to override the veto, falling short of the roughly 290 votes, or two-thirds majority, needed.
Now, expect a court challenge, but here’s the thing: This is a statutory use of the emergency power — not an assertion of inherent constitutional power, which the courts would be more skeptical about — but a statutory use of power that Congress delegated to the president.
Further, Congress spelled out the precise method by which such an order could be challenged: by a vote on a resolution of disapproval, which the president could veto (and then a subsequent veto override vote).
This was all specified by Congress. The Rule of Law was followed. To the letter.
This is not a case where the President is usurping Congressional power and the court feels it should step in to safeguard the separation of powers.
This is a case where Congress gave this power to the president, and the president accepted.
For the courts to step in here would not be safeguarding the separation of powers — it would be violating it. If two coequal branches have worked this out between themselves, what right does a third buttinsky branch have to step in and overrule both of them?
What would the court challenge be predicated upon? That Congress may not delegate so much power to the president?
Maybe, but…
Here’s the thing: that argument has been tried before and it has been rejected partly because of mere logistical concerns. Congress has been delegating so much power to the president and to executive branch agencies (all “rules” in laws, the real nitty-gritty of the law, are written by executive branch agencies, for example) that to say that this system is unconstitutional would paralyze the country, as this is the way it’s been done for 60 years now.