A president`s power to adopt an executive order generally derives explicitly or implicitly from a statute of Congress, but from time to time, presidents, on the basis of their constitutional power to enforce the laws of the nation, have reasoned injunctions. Whether the Constitution allows the president to pursue only a policy devised by Congress or whether he gives the president substantial political decision-making powers has long been controversial. As a result, injunctions based on presidential powers that have not been approved by Congress are more likely to raise concerns about the separation of powers. In these cases, the courts must decide whether the president exercised legislative power that belongs solely to Congress. Perhaps the Supreme Court`s most important case concerning the separation of powers between Congress and the president was that of Roosevelt`s successor, Harry Truman. Youngstown Sheet – Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) became a pioneering case, both because of the resolution of a major national controversy and the Court`s complex analysis of the constitutional limits of the inherent executive power, particularly when a president attempted to extend that power in the search for national security. In 1952, the United Steelworkers of America announced a national strike. Fearing the effects of a steel production disruption in the midst of the Korean War, Truman ordered Trade Minister Charles Sawyer to seize and operate the country`s steel mills. Without congressional approval, Truman relied on the president`s inherent constitutional powers to justify the injunction. The Court quashed the executive order by 6 votes to 3, on the grounds that it had been adopted without proper authority.
Similarly, the courts have rejected the argument that the Constitution is only a constitutionally permissible executive order, that it is a case between private parties. In Farmer v. Philadelphia Electric Co. (1964), for example, the applicant alleged a violation of an executive order prohibiting racial discrimination by state contractors. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that the constitution was intended to limit the power of government. The action “did not bring action against persons whose action was taken by the commission of the action. Government, but one against a private employer “, the case did not come under the Constitution. An executive agreement is an agreement between heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature, since the treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from legally binding contracts.