> many presidents of both parties have done this to varying degrees. Agreed. The interesting question is by what authority presidents are permitted to do that

> many presidents of both parties have done this to varying degrees. Agreed. The interesting question is by what authority presidents are permitted to do that - and to what extent? > But an EO can't just cancel a law, and anyone who breaks it would still be legally liable. Agreed on both points. The part that troubles me is how an unenforced law is practically any different than a canceled law. In the case of the Tiktok, if the Justice Department refuses to investigate, gather evidence or file charges against Tiktok or app store owners how can any penalties be assessed against Tiktok or app stores? Collecting penalties or fines requires a court ruling and judge's order. It never gets in front of a judge without charges being filed. > Since the penalties would be on the app store owners for hosting TikTok, there is little incentive for them to expose themselves to this liability. Yes, the particulars of this law's context have meant there are third-parties who are voluntarily enforcing the provisions of the law which the Justice Department has been ordered not to enforce. But that's just a random aspect of the present situation. It's easy to imagine other similar laws in the future which could only be enforced directly by the government - and the government refusing to do so, has the same effect as the law being cancelled. So, we still have a systemic issue. > One thing I am curious about, though, is my understanding is that Oracle hosts many of TikTok's servers in the US. They would have the same liability as the app store owners, so I'm curious why they are still willing to host TikTok. I didn't know that. Not being a Tiktok user, I'm not aware if it's currently still working for those in the US who already had the app installed.