Executive orders are in the spotlight following President Trump’s flurry of impactful orders in the first days of his second presidency. These powerful tools of presidential authority allow for swift policy changes without congressional approval, but their scope and longevity are subject to certain limitations.

Executive orders are official directives issued by the President of the United States to manage federal government operations. They carry the force of law and are based on the president’s constitutional authority or powers delegated by Congress. These orders can range from routine administrative matters to significant policy shifts, such as Trump’s authorization of controversial oil pipelines in 2017 or Biden’s directive to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement.

Power and Limitations

While executive orders provide presidents with a means to act independently of Congress, they are not without constraints:

Legal Boundaries: Executive orders must operate within existing legal parameters and can be subject to judicial review if they exceed the president’s authority.

Congressional Oversight: Although Congress cannot directly rescind an executive order, it can pass legislation to obstruct its implementation or cut funding for its execution.

Presidential Succession: Incoming presidents often issue orders to revoke those established by their predecessors, as seen when Biden reversed several of Trump’s policies upon taking office.

Historical Context and Usage

Every U.S. president, except William Henry Harrison, has issued executive orders. The number varies widely, with Franklin D. Roosevelt holding the record at 3,721 orders across his four terms. Recent presidents have also made extensive use of this tool, with Trump signing 220 orders during his first term and Biden issuing over 30 in his first month alone.

Controversy and Debate

The use of executive orders often sparks debate due to their ability to bypass congressional approval. Critics argue that they can be used to overstep constitutional authority, while supporters view them as necessary for efficient governance, especially when faced with congressional gridlock.

Executive orders and laws passed by Congress differ in several key ways:

Approval Process: Executive orders are issued directly by the President without requiring Congressional approval. In contrast, laws must go through the full legislative process, including debate, amendments, and voting in both chambers of Congress before being signed by the President.

Constitutional Authority: Executive orders derive their authority from Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which grants executive power to the President. Laws, on the other hand, are based on Congress’s legislative powers outlined in the Constitution.

Scope and  Applicability: Laws passed by Congress apply to the entire country and are binding on all citizens. Executive orders primarily manage federal government operations and direct federal agencies on how to implement existing laws.

Permanence: Laws can only be changed through the legislative process. Executive orders can be more easily altered or revoked by subsequent presidents or through judicial review.

Judicial Review: Both executive orders and laws are subject to judicial review and can be overturned if found unconstitutional. However, the standards for review may differ.

Implementation:  Executive orders often provide specific directives to federal agencies on how to implement or enforce existing laws. Laws, in contrast, establish the broader legal framework that executive orders must operate within.

Flexibility: Presidents can use executive orders to respond quickly to emergencies or address pressing issues without waiting for Congressional action. Laws typically require more time to enact due to the legislative process.

Limitations: Executive orders must operate within existing legal parameters and cannot create new laws or override legislation passed by Congress. Laws passed by Congress have broader authority to establish new legal frameworks.

While executive orders are powerful tools used by presidents, Congress has the ability to 

overturn them through legislation. However, specific examples of Congress directly overturning executive orders are relatively rare. Here are some notable cases:

• In 1992, Congress effectively nullified President George  H.W. Bush’s executive order that established a human fetal tissue bank for research. They accomplished this by  passing a law stating that the order “shall not have any legal effect.”
• The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act) indirectly overturned several of President Truman’s executive orders related to labor disputes and strikes.
• While not a direct overturn, Congress’s refusal to include presidential authority to seize steel mills in the Defense Production Act of 1950 led to the Supreme Court striking down President Truman’s executive order to seize steel mills during the Korean War in the landmark case Youngstown  Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952).

It’s important to note that Congress more  commonly challenges executive orders by:

• Passing legislation that modifies or negates the authority granted by statute to the president.
• Using its “power of the purse” to deny funding necessary for implementing an executive order.

However, these actions require either the president’s signature or a congressional supermajority to override a potential veto, making direct overturns of executive orders by Congress relatively uncommon.