Executive Defiance: Drug Laws And Morality

The U.S. President is sworn to uphold the law, but there have been instances where Presidents have refused to enforce laws with which they disagree. While the President can direct the Justice Department not to enforce specific laws, their non-compliance is not without consequences. The public and the press play a role in holding the executive accountable, and the President's own party may impeach them for failure to execute their duties. Ultimately, the proper balance of power between the executive and the Supreme Court requires negotiation when there is a disagreement.

The U.S. President can direct the justice department to not enforce specific laws

The U.S. President can direct the justice department, including prosecutors and federal officers, to not enforce specific laws. This is based on the understanding that the President can prioritize some laws over others, and while not refusing to enforce a law, they can ensure that other laws are prosecuted first. This has been observed in the case of marijuana offenses in Seattle before legalization, where marijuana offenses were declared the "lowest public priority".

The Obama administration ordered the Department of Justice not to enforce federal drug possession laws regarding cannabis when they conflicted with state laws that had legalized possession. This is an example of the executive branch opting to ignore a law, in this case, the legalization of medical cannabis in California.

The President is sworn to uphold the law, but there is a question of whether they are required to actively enforce laws or simply not act against them. There is no clear procedure for what happens when the executive and the judicial branches disagree on the law, and negotiation is often required. The President is limited by the Constitution, and their powers have a maximum and minimum scope.

In the past, there have been instances where a President's refusal to accept a federal court decision has rendered it unenforceable. For example, in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce a Supreme Court decision that protected the Cherokee Nation from Georgia's laws, leading to the Trail of Tears. This demonstrates that the executive branch can refuse to enforce a law, but it may result in controversial outcomes.

The President's refusal to enforce a law may result in impeachment

The President of the United States is sworn to uphold the law and execute the office. However, the President can direct the justice department, which includes prosecutors and federal officers, to not enforce specific laws. For example, the Obama administration ordered the Department of Justice not to enforce federal drug possession laws regarding cannabis when they conflicted with state laws that had legalised possession.

While the President can "deprioritise" certain laws, outright refusal to enforce a law may result in impeachment. The House of Representatives has the power to initiate impeachment proceedings, and the Senate has the power to try all impeachments. Impeachment is limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

If the President refuses to enforce a law, aggrieved parties can seek to obtain Writs of Mandamus, which are orders to perform a legally mandated duty. However, the practical minimum is likely the level at which even the President's own party decides to impeach and convict him for failure to execute the duties.

While the Supreme Court does not have the power to order the President to act in a particular way, Congress has the power to impeach. Therefore, if the President issues an order to simply stop enforcing a law, that action could be overturned as unconstitutional, and Congress could impeach the President for failure to execute the duties of the office.

Federal courts have limited powers to enforce compliance with their decisions

Federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, have limited powers to enforce compliance with their decisions. While courts may use the contempt power to punish disobedience, this does not guarantee compliance. Compliance with court orders is largely based on a belief in the rule of law and respect for the courts as fair and impartial arbiters.

On rare occasions, however, federal court decisions have been controversial enough to inspire defiance. In these cases, the courts may turn to the executive branch for assistance in enforcing their orders. The president's power to assist in the enforcement of court orders is a significant aspect of the relationship between the executive and judicial branches, but it is only used in extreme circumstances. For example, in response to the 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, where the Supreme Court held that racial segregation of public schools was unconstitutional, southern segregationists coined the rallying cry "Massive Resistance". State officials' defiance of this ruling forced the executive branch to reassert the supremacy of federal law, and on a few occasions, presidents authorized the use of military force to achieve compliance with the federal court order.

The question of whether the executive is obligated to enforce final court judgments has been debated. While Article II commands that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", there is no clear resolution. Appealing to the executive branch for help has not been a viable strategy when the chief executive has strongly opposed a court ruling. There have been instances where federal court decisions have been rendered unenforceable due to a president's refusal to accept them. For example, in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a missionary living among the Cherokee Nation for refusing to take an oath to obey the laws of Georgia. The Court held that the Cherokees constituted an independent political community, and Georgia could not apply its laws to them.

Additionally, the executive branch has, at times, opted to ignore certain laws. For example, the Obama administration ordered the Department of Justice not to enforce federal drug possession laws regarding cannabis when they conflicted with state laws that legalized possession.

The Supreme Court cannot enforce its rulings on the executive branch

The US Supreme Court does not have an army or a police force under its direct control. It relies on the executive branch to enforce its rulings. If the executive branch simply defies the courts, the only remedy is a political one. While the Supreme Court can hold persons who defy its orders in contempt and send marshals to jail them, if the executive branch collectively defies such orders, there is no judicial power to compel obedience to the court orders.

The Supreme Court has the authority to review executive orders and actions to determine whether they are constitutional. If the President’s actions exceed their constitutional authority, the courts can invalidate them. This ensures that the executive branch cannot act unilaterally or contrary to the principles of the Constitution. Judicial review is an essential tool in maintaining the balance of power between the branches and ensuring that no one branch becomes too powerful.

The President holds significant influence over the judicial branch, primarily through the appointment of federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. However, while these appointments can shape the Court’s future decisions, they do not give the President the power to directly overrule the Court’s rulings. The President can have an indirect influence on Supreme Court decisions through judicial appointments. By nominating justices who align with their ideological stance, Presidents hope to shape the Court’s direction. However, once appointed, justices are independent and cannot be controlled by the executive. There is no constitutional provision granting the President the authority to refuse enforcement of a Supreme Court decision.

Throughout US history, Presidents have tested the limits of their power regarding Supreme Court rulings. For example, in the early 19th century, President Andrew Jackson famously defied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, choosing not to enforce the Court’s decision. This historical example highlights the tension between the executive branch and the judiciary. However, constitutional law has firmly established that the judiciary holds the ultimate power in interpreting the Constitution and can check the President’s actions.

The executive branch can be called upon to enforce judicial orders

The executive branch is limited by the Constitution and can be called upon to enforce judicial orders. While the executive branch typically follows court orders, there is no procedure to enforce compliance if the executive branch refuses to comply with a judicial order. This has happened on at least two notable occasions, in Worcester v. Georgia (1832) and in a case involving Alabama Governor George Wallace. In Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a missionary living among the Cherokee Nation for refusing to take an oath to obey the laws of Georgia, holding that the Cherokees constituted an independent political community to which the state of Georgia could not apply its laws. President Andrew Jackson refused to intervene, maintaining that Georgia had the right to apply its laws to any person living within its borders. He also embraced the view that the executive and legislative branches had as much right as the judicial branch to interpret the Constitution. Eventually, Jackson acted in direct contravention of the Court's decision by sending federal troops to evict the Cherokees from their land.

In the case involving Alabama Governor George Wallace, five judges of the U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Middle, and Southern Districts of Alabama signed a restraining order against Wallace, commanding him to cease his interference with integration. Wallace refused to back down and ordered the Alabama National Guard to surround the schools to prevent the entrance of African American students. President Kennedy saw that the courts' orders could not be enforced without executive branch assistance, and the remedy was to federalize the Alabama National Guard and order them to disperse. While the executive branch usually follows court orders due to political optics, there is no enforcement mechanism if they refuse to comply. This has led to debates about the proper balance of power and the need for negotiation between the executive and judicial branches when there is a disagreement.

The question of whether the executive branch is obligated to enforce final court judgments remains unresolved. While Article II of the Constitution states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," this has been interpreted differently by different administrations. In practice, the executive branch has prioritized certain laws over others, effectively refusing to enforce certain laws by prosecuting other laws first. For example, the Obama administration directed the Justice Department not to enforce federal drug possession laws regarding cannabis when they conflicted with state laws that legalized possession.

Frequently asked questions