Executive Overreach Is Nothing New—And Neither Is Overreach by Congress or the Courts

When Americans today worry about the president expanding his power, they’re tapping into a long tradition. Executive overreach isn’t unique to our era; history is filled with presidents pushing the boundaries—sometimes for noble causes, sometimes for less defensible reasons. But it’s not just the executive. The legislative and judicial branches, too, have sometimes stretched or overstepped their constitutional limits. Understanding these episodes reminds us why checks and balances are so vital to our democracy.

Presidential Overreach: Not Just a Modern Story

• Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War:
  Lincoln famously suspended the writ of habeas corpus, allowing the military to detain individuals without trial—a power the Constitution reserves for Congress. He also censored newspapers and authorized military trials for civilians. While Lincoln justified these moves as necessary for national survival, critics then and now have called them constitutionally dubious. His actions set a precedent that future presidents have cited to justify expanded powers in times of crisis.

• Franklin D. Roosevelt in World War II:
  FDR dramatically expanded executive authority, reorganizing federal agencies and imposing censorship. Most notoriously, he authorized the internment of Japanese Americans—an act upheld at the time by the Supreme Court but now widely condemned. FDR also issued sweeping economic orders, some of which were later struck down by the courts.

• Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War:
  Johnson used the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, passed by Congress with little scrutiny, to justify escalating U.S. military involvement in Vietnam far beyond what most lawmakers originally envisioned.

• Ronald Reagan and Iran-Contra:
  The Reagan administration circumvented Congress’s explicit prohibition on funding Nicaraguan Contras by secretly selling arms to Iran and funneling the proceeds to the rebels—a clear violation of the law and congressional intent.

Judicial Overreach: When Courts Step Beyond Their Role

While the judiciary is meant to interpret the law, there have been notable moments when the Supreme Court has been accused of acting more like a legislature—creating new rules or overturning the will of the people’s representatives.

• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857):
  In this infamous decision, the Court declared that African Americans could not be citizens and struck down congressional efforts to limit the spread of slavery. This ruling inflamed national tensions and is widely condemned as judicial overreach with devastating consequences.

• Roe v. Wade (1973):
  The Court established a trimester-based framework for abortion regulation, which many legal scholars—including some who supported abortion rights—criticized as more akin to legislative policymaking than constitutional interpretation. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself noted that the decision “ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action.”

• Bostock v. Clayton County (2020):
  The Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act covers sexual orientation and gender identity. Even the dissent acknowledged the importance of the issue but argued that such a significant change should come from Congress, not the courts, emphasizing the separation of powers.

• Bush v. Gore (2000):
  By halting the Florida recount, the Court effectively decided the outcome of the presidential election. Many critics saw this as an intrusion into a political process that should have been resolved by elected officials or through legislative mechanisms.

• Citizens United v. FEC (2010):
  The Court struck down longstanding congressional limits on corporate political spending, dramatically reshaping campaign finance law and overturning bipartisan legislation. This decision is often cited as an example of the Court overriding the clear intent of Congress.

Legislative Overreach: When Congress Pushes or Abdicates Its Limits

Congress, too, has sometimes stretched its constitutional powers—or tried to avoid tough decisions by handing its authority to others.

• Alien and Sedition Acts (1798):
  These laws criminalized criticism of the government, blatantly infringing on First Amendment rights. They were deeply unpopular and would almost certainly be found unconstitutional today.

• United States v. Lopez (1995):
  In this landmark case, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, ruling that Congress had overreached by trying to regulate a purely intrastate matter (school safety) under the Commerce Clause. The decision reaffirmed that Congress’s powers are vast, but not unlimited.

• Congressional Delegation and Abdication:
  Congress has often delegated broad lawmaking authority to executive agencies or the president, sometimes to avoid accountability for controversial issues. The Supreme Court has occasionally pushed back, as in Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan and Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (both 1935), striking down statutes that handed the president sweeping, undefined powers.

• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Federal Power:
  While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is rightly celebrated for ending legal segregation, some, like Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, have raised constitutional questions about federal regulation of purely local, intrastate matters such as public accommodations. Paul’s critique isn’t opposition to civil rights, but a concern about the expansion of federal power into areas traditionally reserved for states.

• Avoiding Tough Decisions:
  At times, Congress has passed vague statutes or delegated controversial decisions to the executive or judiciary, sidestepping direct accountability and blurring the separation of powers.

Why Checks and Balances Matter

As we reflect on the history of government overreach in all three branches, it’s impossible to ignore that our three-branch system is now dangerously out of balance. In recent decades, Congress—the branch intended to be the people’s voice and the engine of lawmaking—has increasingly failed to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. Instead of debating and resolving the nation’s biggest challenges, Congress has too often ceded its authority to the executive branch, delegated tough decisions to federal agencies, let the Supreme Court decide tough issues like same-sex marriage or abortion, or simply avoided action altogether. The result? Chronic dysfunction: government shutdowns, budget crises, partisan gridlock, and a steady erosion of public trust in our institutions. As Congress has abdicated its lawmaking role, presidents and courts have stepped into the vacuum, further distorting the balance of power the Founders envisioned.

But this decline is not inevitable. There are real solutions: Congress can reclaim its role by taking back authority over major regulatory decisions (as proposed by the REINS Act), restoring regular order in the budget process, and prioritizing bipartisan problem-solving over partisan posturing. Reforms like ending gerrymandering, increasing transparency, and strengthening ethics rules would also help restore accountability. Ultimately, it’s up to all of us to demand a Congress that works for the people, not just for party leaders or special interests. Only then can we restore the healthy checks and balances that keep our democracy strong.

Empowering Voters. Defending Democracy.
League of Women Voters of Bloomington, MN