Also known as: faithfully execute · faithful executions · Take Care Clause · Faithful Execution Clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An executive duty requiring the President to carry out statutory commands according to their terms. The duty prohibits unilateral refusal to spend funds that Congress has expressly directed be spent.
Congress appropriated $2 billion for grants to small retailers harmed by supply chain issues and directed the agency to distribute the full amount. President directed Director Lopez to cap disbursements at half. Shop owner Reed sued to block the cap. The court held that the directive violated the duty to carry out the mandatory spending command.
Congress appropriated funds to be distributed to eligible regional transit systems meeting statutory criteria for replacing aging buses. MetroLink satisfied every criterion. The President ordered the Secretary to withhold funds from systems that had not adopted new labor policies absent from the statute. MetroLink sued for release of the funds. The court ordered disbursement because the withholding contradicted the mandatory directive.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The President ordered seizure of steel mills during a labor dispute to avert a strike affecting national defense production. No statute authorized the seizure. The mill owners sued to enjoin the order. The court ruled that the action exceeded the executive duty because it substituted presidential policy for congressional direction.
During declared war the President authorized seizure of enemy-owned property located within the United States. Congress had enacted statutes addressing wartime measures but had not specifically authorized the seizure. Owners of the seized property sued for return of the assets. The court upheld the action as consistent with carrying out the war declaration according to the law of nations.
Congress created an independent counsel to investigate high-level executive misconduct and limited removal to good cause shown. The Attorney General sought to remove the counsel without cause. The counsel challenged the removal attempt. The court held that the good-cause restriction preserved sufficient presidential control to satisfy the duty of faithful execution.
A citizen group sued a company for failing to file required environmental reports under a federal statute that authorized penalties payable only to the Treasury. The group sought the penalties to vindicate public compliance. The court dismissed the suit because the requested relief did not redress any concrete injury to the plaintiffs and instead sought only general enforcement of the statute.
No. When Congress enacts a statute that directs spending of a specific amount for a specified purpose, the President must carry out that command. Withholding or capping the funds constitutes impermissible impoundment.
Supporting sources
The vesting clause places executive authority in the President, but that authority must be exercised to carry out statutes as written. Directives that substitute presidential preferences for congressional commands exceed the scope of vested power.
Supporting sources
No, provided the President retains sufficient control through other mechanisms such as appointment and supervision of the Attorney General. Good-cause removal limits do not strip the executive of the ability to ensure faithful execution.
Supporting sources
…functions. 2. The Act does not impermissibly interfere with the President's constitutional obligation to ensure the faithful execution of the laws. - (a) The Act's provision restricting the Attorney General's power to remove the independent counsel to cases in which he can show "good cause" does not impermissibly…