10.2 Executive-Judicial Conflicts and Landmark Cases

Executive-judicial conflicts shape the balance of power in American government. Landmark cases like Marbury v. Madison and United States v. Nixon have defined the limits of presidential authority and established judicial review as a check on executive power.

These conflicts highlight the complex relationship between the executive and judicial branches. Through key decisions, the Supreme Court has both expanded and constrained presidential power, playing a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution and maintaining separation of powers.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Establishing Judicial Authority

Top images from around the web for Establishing Judicial Authority

• 

  Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism Today | Boundless Political Science View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism Today | Boundless Political Science View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Establishing Judicial Authority

• 

  Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism Today | Boundless Political Science View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism Today | Boundless Political Science View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review, giving the Supreme Court the power to declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional
  • The case arose from a dispute over President John Adams' appointment of William Marbury as a justice of the peace in the final days of his presidency
  • The Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, was unconstitutional
• United States v. Nixon (1974) limited the scope of executive privilege and compelled President Richard Nixon to release the Watergate tapes
  • The unanimous decision upheld the principle that the President is not above the law and must comply with valid subpoenas
  • The ruling played a crucial role in Nixon's resignation and demonstrated the judiciary's role in checking executive power

Limiting Executive Power

• Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), also known as the Steel Seizure Case, limited the President's power to seize private property without congressional authorization
  • During the Korean War, President Harry Truman ordered the seizure of steel mills to prevent a strike that could have disrupted wartime production
  • The Court ruled that the President had exceeded his authority, as the seizure was not authorized by Congress or the Constitution
• Court packing refers to the controversial attempt by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to increase the number of Supreme Court justices to obtain favorable rulings for his New Deal policies
  • In 1937, FDR proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill, which would have allowed him to appoint up to six additional justices
  • The plan faced strong opposition and was ultimately abandoned, but it highlighted the tension between the executive and judicial branches

Separation of Powers

Constitutional Framework

• Separation of powers is a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution that divides the federal government into three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial
  • The legislative branch (Congress) makes laws, the executive branch (President) enforces laws, and the judicial branch (courts) interprets laws
  • This division of power is designed to prevent any single branch from becoming too powerful and to ensure a system of checks and balances
• Executive privilege is the right of the President and other executive branch officials to withhold certain information from Congress, the courts, and the public
  • This privilege is based on the separation of powers doctrine and the need for confidentiality in executive decision-making
  • However, the scope of executive privilege is not absolute and can be challenged in court, as seen in United States v. Nixon

Checks and Balances

• Presidential power limits are built into the Constitution to prevent the abuse of executive authority
  • The President's actions are subject to judicial review, as established in Marbury v. Madison
  • Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority in both houses
  • The Senate must confirm presidential appointments to key positions, including Supreme Court justices and Cabinet members
  • Congress has the power to impeach and remove the President for "high crimes and misdemeanors"

Judicial Philosophies

Interpreting the Constitution

• Judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, is the power of the courts to evaluate the constitutionality of laws and executive actions
  • This power allows the judiciary to serve as a check on the legislative and executive branches
  • Judicial review has been used to strike down laws that violate individual rights, such as segregation laws in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
• Constitutional interpretation refers to the various approaches judges use to determine the meaning and application of the Constitution
  • Originalism seeks to interpret the Constitution based on the original intent or understanding of the Framers
  • Living constitutionalism views the Constitution as a dynamic document that should be interpreted in light of changing social, economic, and political conditions

Judicial Approaches

• Judicial restraint is a philosophy that emphasizes the limited role of the courts in deciding constitutional issues
  • Advocates of judicial restraint believe that judges should defer to the decisions of elected officials and strike down laws only when they clearly violate the Constitution
  • This approach is often associated with a strict adherence to the text of the Constitution and a reluctance to recognize new rights or powers
• Judicial activism, in contrast, is a philosophy that encourages judges to actively interpret and apply the Constitution to protect individual rights and promote social progress
  • Advocates of judicial activism believe that the courts have a responsibility to address pressing social and political issues, even if it means overturning laws or creating new rights
  • Examples of judicial activism include the Warren Court's decisions on civil rights, privacy, and criminal procedure in the 1950s and 1960s