Also known as: Faithful Execution Clause · Take Care Clause
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional provision requiring the President to ensure that federal statutes are implemented according to their terms. The clause imposes an affirmative duty to carry out congressional directives, including mandatory spending provisions, and bars unilateral refusal to expend appropriated funds.
Congress appropriated $300 million for next-generation air traffic control grants and directed the FAA to obligate the full amount to qualifying contractors. President Carson ordered the FAA to obligate only half the funds to address budget deficits. Gate Aviation and Star Jet, whose proposals met every statutory criterion, sued after their applications were denied due to the shortfall.
Federal procurement statutes required mandatory debarment of repeat wage-theft violators among federal contractors. President Lopez directed the Federal Acquisition Office to ignore the statutory scheme and apply a new flexible penalty system created by executive guidance. A contractor facing the altered regime sued to enforce the original debarment rule.
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 caseA treaty obligated the United States to provide review of certain criminal convictions. President Harding directed state courts to disregard the treaty obligation and apply contrary state procedural rules instead. A convicted defendant whose case was affected sued to compel compliance with the federal directive.
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. The clause requires the President to carry out statutory directions regarding appropriations and prohibits unilateral impoundment of funds that Congress has expressly mandated be spent.
Supporting sources
The clause permits discretion in enforcement priorities and resource allocation but prohibits directives that nullify or replace an entire statutory enforcement mechanism with a conflicting executive policy.
Supporting sources
The clause supplies the substantive limit on the executive power vested in the President by requiring faithful execution of existing statutes rather than suspension or rewriting of laws Congress has enacted.
Supporting sources