The Supreme Court, the executive and the legislature

                The system of checks and balances within the American system ensures that no single branch of government can entirely dominate. Perhaps the most interesting illustration of this whole system of checks and balances concerns the relationship between the judicial branch and the White House. On several occasions during our nation’s history, the Supreme Court has limited the power of the executive branch of government. Revealingly, these limitations have been imposed even when the majority of appointees on the judicial bench have derived from the party of the President. 

                In the case of the Obama administration, the Court’s ruling on the ACA remains easily the most significant in terms of the link between the Supreme Court and the executive branch. In the case of NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) the Republican-led challenge made against the ACA was rejected on a legal technicality (the commerce clause held by Congress). However, that is not to say that the Obama administration has always got its own way vis-à-vis the judicial branch. For instance, the Citizens United ruling was clearly to the dismay of the Democrat President.

                A much more dramatic example of the relationship between the Supreme Court and the White House occurred under Obama’s predecessor. There were four notable rulings made against the Bush administration in the context of the 'war against terror' we could choose to consider. Of these, perhaps the most significant was that of Rasul v. Bush (2004). The Court ruled that foreign detainees held at Gitmo Bay were entitled to access the federal courts in order to challenge their detention as enemy combatants. Speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor made clear that “a state of war is not a blank check for the President.” In a later ruling (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)), the military commissions set up at Gitmo Bay was ruled to be unconstitutional. Both rulings underlined the extent to which the judiciary can limit the executive via constitutional interpretation.

                Under the Clinton administration, the judicial branch played an indirect role in a series of events that would eventually see the Republican-controlled Congress launch impeachment proceedings. In the case of Clinton v. Jones (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that the President was not immune from prosecution for unofficial conduct or from actions committed before he entered the Oval Office. The Jones case led to the President being asked questions under oath about another woman, Monica Lewinsky. On a more mundane level, the judicial branch also ruled that the line-item veto was unconstitutional.

                Taken together, these examples underline the degree to which the judiciary can limit the power of the executive. This particular section also touches upon essential concepts covered in recent posts such as judicial independence and judicial review. It should also be noted that the rulings taken by the Supreme Court can both defend and constrain the power of the executive branch. The dependent factor is that of constitutional interpretation; which in turn is shaped by the ideological make-up of the judicial bench.

                The powers of Congress are laid out clearly in Article 1 of the Constitution. Within this opening section, the two most important elements are the elastic clause and the commerce clause. The elastic clause enables the nation’s legislature to pass all necessary laws whereas the commerce clause caught the public’s attention during the ruling on Obamacare in 2012. Article 1 also enumerates a number of powers to the legislature, such as the ability to declare war and coin money. As with any group of politicians, there is an inherent temptation to expand one’s powers. In such instances, the role of the Supreme Court has always been to clarify what the legislative branch can and cannot do. For instance, in the case of Arizona v. US (2012) the Court struck down three provisions of a state law on immigration because they encroached upon an area of congressional authority. Despite having a conservative majority on the bench, the ruling was favorable to the federal level of government.

                In summary, the Supreme Court is the only institution that can delineate the proper constitutional boundaries for the executive and the legislature. Moreover, it will also rule on the proper relationship between the state and federal government (as in the case of immigration laws in Arizona). Once again, one is reminded of the political importance of the judicial branch. In a country where the Constitution is revered, the institution whose responsibility it is to ultimately interpret the document will always play a significant role within the political process.