Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 69.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

27 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

scholars  have  concluded  that  the  Take  Care  Clause  was 
meant to repudiate that authority.18  See 1 Works of James 
Wilson 399, 440 (R. McCloskey ed. 1967) (describing Clause 
as  providing  that  the  President  holds  “authority,  not  to 
make, or alter, or dispense with the laws, but to execute and 
act the laws”). 

Early decisions are inconsistent with the understanding
of Executive Power that appears to animate the majority.
In 1806, Justice Patterson, while presiding over a criminal
trial,  rejected  the  argument  that  the  President  could  au-
thorize the defendant to violate the law.  United States v. 
Smith,  27  F. Cas.  1192,  1201  (No.  16,342)  (CC  NY  1806).
He concluded: 

“The  president  of  the  United  States  cannot  control 
the  statute,  nor  dispense  with  its  execution,  and  still 
less can he authorize a person to do what the law for-
bids.  If he could, it would render the execution of the 
laws dependent on his will and pleasure; which is a doc-
trine that has not been set up, and will not meet with 
any supporters in our government.  In this particular, 
the law is paramount.”  Id., at 1230. 

In  Kendall  v.  United  States  ex  rel.  Stokes,  12  Pet.  524 
(1838), the full Court rejected the President’s claim that he
had the authority to disregard a statutory duty to pay cer-
tain sums to a government contractor: “To contend that the
obligations imposed on the President to see the laws faith-
fully executed, implies a power to forbid their execution, is 
—————— 
Making of the American Constitution 140 (2009) (describing debate over 
the executive veto). 

18 See,  e.g.,  Delahunty  &  Yoo,  Dream  On  803–804  (2013);  Reinstein, 
Limits 281; S. Prakash, The Essential Meaning of Executive Power, 2003
U. Ill. L. Rev. 701, 726, n. 113 (2003); C. May, Presidential Defiance of 
“Unconstitutional”  Laws:  Reviving  the  Royal  Prerogative  16  and  n. 58 
(1998); R. Reinstein, An Early View of Executive Powers and Privilege: 
The  Trial  of  Smith  and  Ogden,  2  Hastings  Const.  L. Q.  309,  320–321, 
n. 50 (1975).