Have executive orders ever been challenged in court?

[yurbud]

I'm wondering not just about Bush's signing statements, but the executive order immunizing oil companies working in Iraq from lawsuits.

[Drum]

1. bookmarking this post...

I have no info to answer with or contribute, but I'll be really interested when more-informed DUers begin to weigh in on this topic...

Great post, yerbud. :thumbsup:

[yurbud]

2. I'll be waiting to see too, but could be a long wait.

I'll probably have to do my own untrained legal search.

[Drum]

3. Kicking and recommending, for emphasis...

Adding a few ???s and !!!s

:kick:

[CBGLuthier]

4. Yes, and here is some info to boot

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20011221.html

In 1946, when President Truman seized several major bituminous coal mines, to enable his Secretary of the Interior to negotiate a contract with mineworkers, he claimed he was acting under the War Labor Disputes Act, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America.

Truman's action was not unlike earlier actions of Franklin Roosevelt, who had used presidential directives to seize textile mills, refineries, railroads, and other enterprises facing strikes that could hurt the WW II war effort.

Later, in 1952, during the Korean conflict, Truman seized steel mills to avert a nation-wide strike of steel workers, which he believed would jeopardize national defense. He issued an executive order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate several steel mills.

Mill owners immediately sought to enjoin the order from going into effect. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, considered a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court held that Truman had no statutory or inherent Constitutional authority for his action. To the contrary, the President, according to the Court, had undertaken a legislative action properly reserved to Congress, and thus violated the separation of powers.

[yurbud]

6. last one is a good precedent. unilaterally violating treaties AND laws

simultaneously should be even more clearcut shouldn't it?

[Sgent]

5. It depends on the order

and the legal basis for it.

I haven't read the judicial order, but I'm assuming in this case Bush designated the oil companies as federal contractors with immunity through the FTCA (or similar). Assuming that is the case, then they have recieved irreversable immunity for the purposes of fulfilling that specific contract(s).

You could sue them, but they would be considered agents of the federal government. This means that soveriegn immunity would exist, and most lawsuits would fail. There may exist some method to recoup expense only in the case of personal injury torts -- but that money would come from the Federal Govt, and US Attorney's would provide the defense.

[yurbud]

7. what if they were sued for inciting the war in the first place rather than

profiting from it or the damage done directly to the Iraqis?