- Posted September 25, 2017
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
ABA News ABA Legal Fact Check examines limits on presidential executive orders

The American Bar Association updated its new web-based ABA Legal Fact Check today by exploring the limits on presidential executive orders.
On Oct. 10, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's revised Executive Order No. 13780 known as the travel ban. ABA Legal Fact Check looks at the history of these orders, and how they largely went unchecked by the courts until 1952 after President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 10340, which placed all U.S. steel mills under federal control during the Korean War. Later that year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer that President Truman had overstepped his authority because he attempted to make law rather than clarify an existing piece of legislation. In that decision, Justice Robert Jackson, in a concurring opinion, put forth a three-part test to judge the possible overreach of presidential power that is still relied upon by courts today.
ABA Legal Fact Check, debuted last month and is the first fact check website focusing exclusively on legal matters. The project is one of several initiatives launched by Hilarie Bass, who became ABA president on Aug. 15 at the close of the ABA Annual Meeting in New York.
ABA Legal Fact Check seeks to help the public find dependable answers and explanations to swirling and sometimes confusing legal questions. The URL for the new site is www.abalegalfactcheck.com. Follow us on twitter @ABAFactCheck.
Published: Mon, Sep 25, 2017
headlines Detroit
headlines National
- March 1, 1828: Sojourner Truth goes to court
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- DOJ nominees hedge on whether court orders must always be followed
- DNA evidence in open cases explored in ABC reality series
- Which law-related films have won Oscars? You may be surprised (photo gallery)
- ‘Radical agreement’ could lead to Supreme Court victory for reverse-discrimination plaintiff