In the case of Obama`s complaint, which grants amnesty to illegal immigrants and allows them to apply for work permits, states have asked federal courts to intervene and end the executive amnesty. And they did so, at least temporarily, until a decision was made in the future whether these complaints were constitutional and should be permanently registered. And why was it so important, for example, that President Barack Obama, with his executive powers, protected millions of illegal immigrants from deportation? During the Obama presidency, Congress often clashed with the executive branch over its use of executive orders and other unilateral actions it took. Obama, however, is not the first president to face a backlash. The Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the President to notify the Senate within 60 days of an executive agreement. The president`s powers to conclude such agreements have not been restricted. The reporting requirement allowed Congress to vote in favor of repealing an executive agreement or to refuse funding for its implementation.   Some of the more controversial executive orders or acts of the modern presidency include: Federal courts may also repress executive orders that exceed the authority of the president, as did an appeals court with President Bill Clinton`s order to ban government contracts with companies that employ strike offenders, and the Supreme Court did so by ordering the government to use foreign languages in the provision of federal services and services. Five years later, in the “Usa” / 494 cases, the Court adopted these principles another case concerning the attribution and recognition of the Soviet government by Litvinov. The question was whether the United States had the right to recover the assets of the New York branch of a Russian insurance company. The company argued that the Soviet government`s forfeiture decrees did not apply to its property in New York and could not apply in contradiction to the U.S.
and New York Constitutions. The court, which was decided by Justice Douglas, brushed aside these arguments. An official statement from the Russian government itself resolved the issue of the extraterritorial operation of the Russian nationalization decree and was binding on the US courts.