The Supreme Court: Executive Acts And The Constitution

The US Constitution has a set of checks and balances to ensure that no branch of the government is more powerful than the others. The President of the United States has the power to issue executive orders, which are written directives ordering the government to take specific actions. However, these orders must be within the President's constitutional authority, and they can be challenged in court. The federal judiciary has the power to review the constitutionality of executive orders, and in some cases, the Supreme Court has struck down executive orders as unconstitutional.

Explore related products

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$237.39 $359

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.38 $126.95

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

The Supreme Court can declare executive acts unconstitutional

While there is no explicit provision in the Constitution for executive orders, they are generally considered to be granted by Article II, which vests executive powers in the president. Executive orders are written directives issued by the president to guide the actions of the executive branch and federal agencies. They are often used to implement policies and ensure the execution of laws.

However, the Supreme Court can strike down executive orders if they are found to be unconstitutional or beyond the scope of the president's authority. This was demonstrated in the case of Ex parte Milligan (1866), where the Supreme Court ruled against Lincoln's wartime executive order providing for military trials for civilians accused of aiding the Confederacy. The Court held that these trials violated constitutional rights, including the right to a jury trial.

In addition to the Supreme Court, lower federal courts can also play a role in reviewing executive acts. For example, a federal court judge temporarily blocked President Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. In another case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the Youngstown framework to analyse the limits of presidential power in issuing executive orders.

The Supreme Court's power to declare executive acts unconstitutional is an important aspect of the US constitutional system, ensuring that the president's actions are subject to judicial scrutiny and remain within the boundaries set by the Constitution.

Federal judiciary reviews the constitutionality of executive acts

The federal judiciary has the power to review the constitutionality of executive acts. This power has been exercised since the early days of the republic, with the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803 implying that federal courts have the authority to review executive branch actions. This was later confirmed in subsequent cases. The review of executive acts, often in the form of executive orders, helps to define the scope of presidential powers and is a significant aspect of the checks and balances system in the American Constitution.

Executive orders are written directives issued by the President, with the force of federal law, to direct a federal official or agency to take or refrain from a course of action. While there is no explicit provision for executive orders in the Constitution, they are generally considered to be granted by Section 1 of Article II (the Executive Power). The President's power to issue executive orders also stems from the powers granted by Congress.

The federal judiciary can strike down executive orders on the grounds that the President lacked authority or that the order is unconstitutional in substance. The Supreme Court has, on several occasions, held executive orders to be unconstitutional, such as in the case of Lincoln's General Order No. 100, which was struck down as it violated the right to a jury trial in criminal cases.

In addition to the Supreme Court, lower federal courts have also played a role in reviewing executive acts. For example, in the case of Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship, a federal court judge temporarily blocked its implementation. Similarly, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington heard a suit brought by the state of Washington (later joined by Minnesota) challenging an executive order on immigration as unconstitutional.

The judiciary's review of executive acts ensures that the President's actions are within the scope of their constitutional authority and helps maintain the balance of powers between the different branches of government.

Executive acts can be challenged in court

Executive orders are written directives issued by the President, with the power to influence policy and direct federal officials or agencies. They are enforceable if they are a valid exercise of the President's power and within their constitutional authority. The President's power to issue executive orders stems from the Constitution and powers granted by Congress. The Constitution's checks and balances ensure that no branch of government becomes more powerful than another, and executive orders cannot override federal laws and statutes.

Courts can strike down executive orders if they are deemed unconstitutional in substance or if the President lacked the authority to issue them. In some cases, the manner in which executive branch officials have interpreted an order may be challenged, or the order may be subjected to a "reasonableness review". The Supreme Court has struck down executive orders on constitutional grounds, including in the case of Ex parte Milligan (1866), where Lincoln's General Order No. 100, providing for trial by military commissions, was found to violate several constitutional provisions.

Executive orders can be challenged in court by parties with "standing", meaning those who have been harmed by the order. For example, the states of Washington and Minnesota challenged an executive order on immigration restrictions, arguing that it harmed their universities by prohibiting international faculty, students, and scholars from travelling. In another instance, the ACLU challenged a Texas law restricting social media content for minors as a violation of the First Amendment.

The judiciary's review of executive acts helps define the scope of presidential powers and maintains the balance of power between the branches of government.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$269.76 $305

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$75.91 $345

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism (Examples & Explanations Series)

$59.81 $76.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights (Examples & Explanations Series)

$76.95 $76.95

Executive orders can be challenged on constitutional grounds

Executive orders are written directives issued by the President of the United States, who acts as the head of the executive branch. They are enforceable if they represent a valid exercise of the President's power, meaning the action must be within the President's constitutional authority. While there is no specific provision in the US Constitution for executive orders, Section 1 of Article II (the Executive Power) is generally viewed as granting authority for such orders.

Courts may declare executive orders unconstitutional if the President lacked the authority to issue them or if the substance of the order is found to be unconstitutional. In some cases, the manner in which executive branch officials have interpreted an order may be challenged in court. The judiciary's review of executive orders helps define the scope of presidential powers and serves as a check on the President's authority, ensuring that no one branch of the government becomes more powerful than the others.

The President's power to issue executive orders stems from the Constitution and powers granted by Congress. The President's authority is at its peak when there is direct or implied authorization from Congress, and at its weakest when the President acts against Congress's expressed wishes. The President's ability to issue executive orders is also limited by the fact that they cannot override federal laws and statutes, which are passed by Congress.

In recent years, several of President Donald Trump's executive orders have been challenged in court, including an order restricting birthright citizenship and an order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. In another case, Washington and Minnesota challenged an executive order on immigration, arguing that it unconstitutionally stranded residents abroad, restricted travel, and damaged the states' economies and universities.

The Supreme Court can strike down executive acts

The Supreme Court's power to review executive acts is derived from the Constitution and court decisions. While the Constitution does not explicitly mention executive orders, Article II, Section 1 vests executive powers in the President, and the Court has interpreted this as granting the President the authority to issue executive orders.

Throughout history, the Supreme Court has played a crucial role in defining the limits of presidential power and ensuring that executive acts do not exceed the President's constitutional authority. One notable example is the case of Ex parte Milligan (1866), where the Court struck down President Lincoln's wartime executive order providing for military trials for civilians accused of aiding the Confederacy. The Court held that the order violated constitutional provisions, including the right to a jury trial in criminal cases.

In addition to reviewing the constitutionality of executive orders, the Supreme Court also assesses the validity of formal directions issued by the President to executive branch agencies and officials. This review helps to define the scope of presidential powers and maintain the system of checks and balances within the American constitutional system.

The Supreme Court has also struck down acts of Congress that are found to be unconstitutional. For example, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Court held that Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not extend to defining the substance of the Amendment's restrictions. This decision invalidated a portion of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as exceeding Congress's enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court plays a vital role in interpreting and safeguarding the Constitution by reviewing and, when necessary, striking down executive acts that exceed the President's constitutional authority or violate constitutional provisions. This power of judicial review helps maintain the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the US government.

Frequently asked questions