Final answer:
The Court often defers to the president during wartime or national emergencies when executive power peaks, especially for decisions critical to national security or foreign policy. However, the Court maintains a check on presidential power through judicial review, restricting actions that exceed constitutional or legislative boundaries, such as in Truman's 1952 steel mill seizure case.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Court tends to defer to the president, primarily during times of war or national emergency, where the president's power is deemed at its zenith. In these situations, the culmination of executive responsibility to protect national security and manage foreign policy becomes paramount.
Historical occurrences exhibit presidents such as Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War utilizing executive power expansively, with actions like the Emancipation Proclamation. In modern contexts, executive decisions in foreign policy and national security, such as Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court's decision during a State of the Union address, also derive from inherent presidential powers.
However, this deference is not without bounds. The Supreme Court has the authority to review presidential actions and has both expanded and confined presidential power over time. The separation of powers ensures checks and balances, which was evident when the Supreme Court in 1952 refused President Harry Truman's claim of inherent emergency powers in the Korean War during a steel strike. Congress's legislative actions or inactions could also influence the extent of presidential power, guiding the Court's judgment on the invocation of inherent powers.