Yes?
No?
Sometimes?
I don’t think an Executive Order can outlaw abortions.
Legally, no.
Practically, since the Executive enforces the ruling, he can ignore it. The Supreme Court has no way to enforce their rulings.
Is your answer “no” or “sometimes”?
An Executive Order is an interpretation of an existing law. It cannot create new law. That’s for Congress.
But that doesn’t answer your question, because a) a Supreme Court ruling may be on any variety of subjects, including interpretations of laws and whether executive branch agencies are properly using their powers and b) an Executive Order can try to do anything, including getting around previous rulings by redirecting authority.
But that would be for SCOTUS to decide in another ruling.
It all depends on the fine details of the wording and history of a particular case and can’t be answered in the abstract, any more than most SCOTUS decisions can. I therefore think that the answer to your question would be Yes; No; Sometimes; it all depends on how you define “overturn.”
Yes.
Everybody is a comedian.
Thank ghod you’re different.
The answer is almost certainly “sometimes” depending on the nature of the executive order; the nature of the court’s ruling; and your definition of “overturn.”
No, not to my knowledge. EOs don’t make or cancel laws. they are simply directives from the President on how laws passed by Congress are to be enforced. The Supreme Court set aside one of Truman’s EOs as attempting to “make” law without Congress’s approval.
One clear case where it could is if SCOTUS ruled on the meaning of an executive order and the current president decided to clarify it. But I don’t think that’s what the OP had in mind. The president cannot change a law with an executive, not that they don’t try. Although Trump may push it more than most.
What do you mean by “overturn”?
NOTHING can “overturn” a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States other than another ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States on the question the first ruling was issued regarding. Say, by motion for rehearing, or if the same case returned to the Court on further proceedings. Even when the Court decides to dispense with a prior precedent, the former ruling isn’t "overturn"ed; it still exists and applies to the case it was issued in.
Now, there are various ways that the effects of a decision by the Supreme Court can be nullified. For example, an amendment to the Constitution can be enacted (e.g.: the Eleventh Amendment, which remedied the determination of the Supreme Court in Chisolm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793) that a state could be sued in federal court by the citizens of another state. Similarly, if the Supreme Court makes a determination regarding a law passed by Congress, Congress can remedy the situation by changing the law to avoid the issue identified by the Court. In similar ways, states can affect the application of a Supreme Court decision regarding their laws/constitutions through modification of the laws/constitution in question.
If by “overturn”, you mean modify, set aside, or over-rule directly, then the answer is obviously no.
If by “overturn”, you mean change the situation so that the decision no longer is controlling, the answer is obviously maybe (depending on the situation). It would be very situation dependent.
If your question is in regards to the census having a question about citizenship, then that will depend upon what the President attempts to do with his executive order. Please keep in mind that the Supreme Court in U.S. Dept. of Commerce v. New York, 18-966 (2019) specifically held that the Census can include a question regarding citizenship, but that the Dept.'s stated reason for including it appeared to be a pretext, in light of other evidence, entitling the District Court to require the Dept. to provide a more accurate explanation of why the question was included. The District Court had enjoined the Secretary of the Dept. of Commerce from including such a question unless and until he cured the legal errors identified (the only one of which has been sustained is the pretextual reasoning). So the Secretary is enjoined from including a question and must go back to the District Court to seek to have that injunction removed, presumably.