Is the US President required to enforce a Supreme Court decision even if he disagrees with it?

Answer 1

In order to protect the checks and balances of the government the Supreme Court can find a piece of legislation unconstitutional, but their decision can not be overridden by the President. The only way that the decision of the Supreme Court can be overruled is by them reversing their decision or the constitution of the state being revised.

The President has the power to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court - with confirmation by the Senate but once they are on the bench, their rulings are binding and the President cannot overrule them. The most that the President could do is persuade Congress to impeach a member of the Court (otherwise they serve until they either resign/retire or until they die). The President could also work with Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Answer 2

The President is supposed to enforce the Supreme Court's decisions; however, in practice, it doesn't always work that way (or work quickly).

Although the Constitution vests the Supreme Court with the highest judicial power in the United States, it doesn't grant the Court authority to enforce its decisions. That responsibility falls to the Executive branch, which is lead by the President. This has the potential to create problems when the branch responsible for administering a decision is required to act against its perceived best interests (or preferences).

Refusal was a real concern in the Marbury v. Madison,(1803) case that formally legitimized the Court's right of judicial review. In Marbury, the petitioner asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus (a court order compelling an official to take action within his scope of power) to Secretary of State James Madison, forcing him to deliver a justice of the peace commission assigned by the former US President. Neither the current President (Thomas Jefferson) nor the Secretary of State (James Madison) had any intention of providing Marbury his commission.

Chief Justice John Marshall realized ordering Madison to deliver the appointment through a writ of mandamus would result in disobedience (contempt) on Madison's part. Without power to enforce the order, the opinions of the Supreme Court could be rendered moot, and the Judicial branch weakened relative to the Executive and Legislative branches.

Marshall's solution was to declare that Madison owed Marbury his commission, but that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to order it delivered because Congress had overreached its authority by assigning the Supreme Court the right to issue all writs of mandamus, which Marshall argued wasn't one of the enumerated powers assigned the court in Article III. In order to avoid a potentially disastrous conflict with the President, Marshall instead declared a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional.

Some historians may cite Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), a later case of the Marshall Court, as an example of a US President (Jackson) defying a Supreme Court order. In Worcester, the Court declared Native Americans had a right to federal protection against hostile state action. The only substantive ruling in the case, however, was that Georgia release missionaries who had been jailed for living on Native American land without purchasing a required state license. Georgia complied with this decision, rendering federal intervention moot. While it's true both President Jackson and Congress opposed the Court's opinion, their willingness to enforce the decision was never really tested.

More recently, the Supreme Court faced the potential for non-compliance in United States v. Nixon, (1974), when it ordered Nixon to turn over certain audio tapes to the Special Prosecutor in charge of investigating the Watergate scandal. Nixon had already resisted Judge John Sirrica's District Court order on the grounds of Executive privilege. Fortunately, Nixon acquiesced to the Supreme Court's decision, avoiding a constitutional crisis.

Under most circumstances, however, the President has no real motive for refusing to implement a directive (which aren't issued against the Executive branch very often, anyway), or has other ways of circumventing a decision without provoking a direct confrontation. Such was the case in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,(2004), when the Supreme Court voted 8-1 that Hamdi's right to due process was violated by the military's "indefinite detention" policy that denied captives access to an attorney or to petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Although Justice Scalia voted with the majority (actually, a messy plurality decision) that the Executive branch didn't have the constitutional authority to detain an "enemy combatant" indefinitely without providing for due process, he also wrote a dissenting opinion that outlined to Congress how to rewrite legislation in such a way that would accomplish their goals without raising overt constitutional objections.

Although potential for legal defiance exists, in practice, respect for the Supreme Court and the Constitution encourages cooperation from the President and Congress, even when they're unhappy with the Court's decisions.

Answer 3

Yes. The President would be overreaching his Constitutional authority by refusing to enforce a US Supreme Court decision. Interpreting the Constitution is the role of the Judicial branch, not the Executive branch.

Unfortunately, no one has the authority to compel the President to enforce a Supreme Court decision, which has resulted in rulings being applied narrowly, only to the specific case in question.

One example is that of Browder v. Gayle, (1956) when the Warren Court declared segregated busing unconstitutional in response to the Montgomery bus boycott and its subsequent legal challenge. Although Montgomery was forced to integrate by court order, Eisenhower ignored the Court's decree and allowed segregation to continue elsewhere. The federal government didn't back the Supreme Court's attempt to nullify Jim Crow laws until Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Additional Information from Another User:

The recent Presidents have created a new idea called a signing statement when they sign a bill. This statement say they don't agree with the bill and refuse to follow it. Clinton and Bush used this a great deal, but I haven't heard if Obama has. I don't know if this statement could extend to the Supreme Court, but if the Court decisions become law, it is possible.

Answer 4

No. Neither the President nor Congress can overturn a US Supreme Court decision. Congress may rewrite unconstitutional legislation so it complies with the Court's decision. There are only a few ways a decision may be overturned:

• The Supreme Court may overturn a precedent set by an earlier Court by making a different decision in a later, similar case.
• The Supreme Court may reverse its own decision on rehearing (rare).
• Congress and the States may effectively nullify a Supreme Court decision by ratifying a constitutional amendment.

Answer 5

Yes and No.
Refusing to enforce a decision of the courts could get a president impeached or cause political damage. On the other hand, Andrew Jackson did just that tin the case of the Indian Removal Act that resulted in the Trail of Tears suffered by Native Americans living in the Us southeast. He experienced no significant negative effects..

Answer 6

That is one example of what is known as contempt of court. It's supposed to be a serious issue, but the Obama Administration many times has ignored a court order, disobeyed the U.S. Constitution, or have enforced only the Federal Laws with which they agree. It is the responsibility of the U.S. House of Representatives to respond whenever a federal official commits treason, bribery, a high crime, or a misdemeanor, but so far they have refused to do so.

So the answer should be "no", but unfortunately it is "yes".

Answer 7

No, the President of the United States does not have the authority to reverse a Supreme Court decision.