This is a fools errand, and may end up making the GOP look not only foolish, but impotent. The House has no standing to sue the chief executive because he is recalcitrant at enforcing the law. The Supremes will say that is what elections are for. We are royally screwed.
Not necessarily so. An older Supreme Court case holds that a legislative body (state legislature) has standing to sue the chief executive (governor) for failing to enforce duly enacted laws because that refusal has the effect of completely nullifying the votes of all the legislators (i.e., how the legislature voted becomes irrelevant). That case is Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). Coleman was discussed by the Court in Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), a case in which 6 members of Congress sued to prevent Clinton from exercising the line item veto Congress had recently enacted, and was accepted as granting standing to a legislature where the executive’s actions have the effect of “completely nullifying” the acts of the legislature.
That is what Obuttocks is doing here, at least that is what we’re claiming he’s doing - nullifying the vote of the entire Congress by completely ignoring the laws duly passed and signed into law by prior presidents. That should give the House standing under Coleman.