Also known as: Take-Care Clause · Faithful Execution Clause
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional command requiring the President to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. The clause imposes a duty to carry out statutory spending directives without unilateral refusal or alteration when Congress has mandated disbursement of appropriated funds.
Congress enacted a statute directing the Federal Procurement Office to distribute specified grants to states for upgrading voting systems with no conditions attached. The President ordered the office director to withhold payments from states whose election laws the administration criticized. Affected states sued the director to compel disbursement of the funds.
Congress created an independent multimember commission with staggered terms and permitted presidential removal only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. The President attempted to remove a commissioner immediately for policy disagreement and named an acting replacement. The commissioner sued to block the removal and replacement.
Following the 2008 financial crisis, Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The agency was tasked with implementing and enforcing a large body of federal consumer financial protection statutes, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Truth in Lending Act, along with a new prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in the consumer-finance sector. The CFPB is led by a single Director appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a five-year term, during which the President may remove the Director only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. The agency receives its funding directly from the Federal Reserve rather than through the annual appropriations process. In 2017, the CFPB issued a civil investigative demand to Seila Law LLC, a California-based law firm that provides debt-related legal services to clients. The demand sought information and documents related to the firm’s business practices to determine whether Seila Law had engaged in unlawful acts or practices in the advertising, marketing, or sale of debt relief services. Seila Law asked the CFPB to set aside the demand on the ground that the agency’s single-Director structure with for-cause removal protection violated the separation of powers. When the CFPB declined, Seila Law refused to comply, and the CFPB filed a petition in federal district court to enforce the demand. The district court rejected Seila Law’s constitutional challenge and ordered the firm to comply with the demand. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Seila Law’s arguments were foreclosed by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and Morrison v. Olson. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the constitutionality of the CFPB’s structure and, if necessary, the severability of the Director’s removal protection from the remainder of the Dodd-Frank Act.
View caseThe President issued a memorandum directing state courts to set aside procedural bars and reopen final criminal judgments to comply with an international court decision. A state court refused to follow the directive on the ground that the decision lacked domestic legal force. The affected defendant challenged the state court's refusal.
The United States ratified the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations along with its Optional Protocol in 1969. Petitioner José Ernesto Medellín, a Mexican national, was convicted and sentenced to death in a Texas state court for capital murder arising from extremely violent crimes. Texas authorities did not inform Medellín of his right under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention to request assistance from the Mexican consulate upon his detention. Medellín first raised his Vienna Convention claim during state and federal habeas corpus proceedings. It was rejected either as procedurally defaulted under state rules or on the merits. While Medellín's federal appeal remained pending, the International Court of Justice issued its judgment in Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.). The ICJ determined that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention with respect to fifty-one Mexican nationals including Medellín. It directed the United States to provide review and reconsideration of those convictions and sentences without regard to generally applicable state procedural default rules. After the Avena judgment, President George W. Bush issued a memorandum declaring that the United States would discharge its international obligations under Avena by having state courts give effect to the decision. Relying on both the Avena judgment and the President's Memorandum, Medellín filed a second application for a writ of habeas corpus in Texas state court. He challenged his conviction and death sentence on the ground that he had not been informed of his Vienna Convention rights. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Medellín's second habeas application as an abuse of the writ. The court concluded that neither the Avena judgment nor the President's Memorandum qualified as binding federal law capable of displacing the state's limitations on the filing of successive habeas applications. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the questions raised by Medellín's challenge.
View caseNo. When Congress enacts a statute that mandates spending and sets disbursement conditions, the clause requires the executive to follow those directions. Withholding funds adds conditions Congress did not impose and constitutes impermissible impoundment.
Supporting sources
The directive is invalid. The clause obligates the President to execute the law as written, including clear timing requirements for payments. Ordering indefinite delay to achieve fiscal or political goals violates that duty.
Supporting sources
No. The clause prohibits substituting political preferences for statutory eligibility criteria. Withholding funds from otherwise qualified applicants solely because of political opposition amounts to unilateral revision of the appropriations law.
Supporting sources
No. An express statutory command to obligate the full appropriation leaves no room for the executive to defer a substantial portion based on fiscal concerns. Such action constitutes prohibited impoundment.
Supporting sources