Definition of the Day: Checks and Balances
Today’s Definition: Checks and Balances
Checks and balances
Plural noun
A constitutional system that divides federal authority among the legislative, executive and judicial branches while giving each branch tools to restrain the others.
The important part is any branch.
A Republican president.
A Democratic president.
A Republican Congress.
A Democratic Congress.
A conservative judge.
A liberal judge.
The constitutional question remains the same:
Did that branch remain within the authority granted to it by law?
Several major Supreme Court cases demonstrate how that principle applies across all three branches of the federal government.
The Executive Branch
In Biden v. Nebraska in 2023, the Supreme Court held that the HEROES Act did not authorize the secretary of education to implement the Biden administration’s student-loan cancellation program. The Court’s opinion described the program as canceling approximately $430 billion in student-loan principal.
An older example reaches across party lines.
In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer in 1952, the Supreme Court rejected Democratic President Harry Truman’s attempt to seize and operate much of the nation’s steel industry during the Korean War.
The Court concluded that the president lacked constitutional or statutory authority to take possession of the steel mills.
Together, these cases demonstrate that presidential power is not unlimited, regardless of who occupies the White House.
The Judicial Branch
Federal courts can issue injunctions protecting parties from government actions they determine are unlawful. However, the permissible scope of that relief also has limits.
In Trump v. CASA in 2025, the Supreme Court considered universal injunctions—orders preventing the federal government from enforcing a policy against people who were not parties to the lawsuit.
The Court concluded that the federal government was likely to succeed in showing that these injunctions exceeded the equitable authority Congress had granted federal courts. It explained that injunctive relief generally should not extend beyond what is necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs before the court.
The decision addressed the scope of the injunctions. It did not decide whether President Donald Trump’s underlying birthright-citizenship executive order was constitutional.
The Legislative Branch
Congress can also exceed its constitutional authority.
In INS v. Chadha in 1983, the Supreme Court invalidated a provision allowing one chamber of Congress to overturn an executive-branch decision.
The Court concluded that Congress had bypassed the Constitution’s requirements of bicameralism and presentment. Legislative action of that kind generally must pass both the House and Senate before being presented to the president.
The case demonstrated that Congress cannot avoid constitutional lawmaking requirements when attempting to control the actions of another branch.
Power Must Check Power
That is the purpose of checks and balances.
The identity or political party of the person exercising power does not change the underlying constitutional principle. Limits on government authority matter when they restrain political opponents, but they also matter when they restrain people with whom we agree.
James Madison summarized the principle in Federalist No. 51:
“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”
The Founders did not design a government that depended upon power policing itself. They divided governmental authority so that power could check power.
That leaves Americans with an important question:
Are we willing to defend constitutional limits just as strongly when the branch crossing them is controlled by people we agree with?
Commentary by GenXPatriot, MAGA Viral™ Contributor
Faith. Family. Freedom.
