So recently I have been reading about the 1893 Cleveland–Liliʻuokalani restoration executive agreements following the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and it raised a broader constitutional question that I’m curious about. As I understand it, executive agreements can sometimes carry the force of federal law even without Senate ratification, and SCOTUS has recognized their binding nature in cases like United States v. Belmont and United States v. Pink. But has the Supreme Court ever clearly ruled on what happens when Congress later acts inconsistently with an earlier executive agreement made with a foreign sovereign, or if a future president decides to unilaterally break from the agreement? For example, if the executive branch entered into an agreement committing the United States to a particular course of action internationally, and Congress later passed legislation seemingly contrary to that agreement, is there a settled doctrine on which prevails domestically?…