The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state that judges can override the executive authority of the President or the Supreme Court. However, the Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial.
Judicial authority, including that of federal judges, comes primarily from Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the judicial branch. Federal judges have the power to interpret the law and to review actions taken by the Executive branch (including actions by the President) to ensure they comply with the Constitution. This judicial review is a key principle that allows courts to invalidate actions that they determine are unconstitutional.
The landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review, affirming the authority of the Supreme Court to review and overturn laws and executive actions that conflict with the Constitution. This means that while judges can interpret and enforce the law, they cannot "override" the Executive branch in the sense of simply negating its authority; rather, they can declare certain actions unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
It's important to note that while judges can rule against executive actions that they find unconstitutional, their rulings can be subject to appeal in higher courts, including the Supreme Court, which acts as the final arbiter of constitutional questions. The balance of power, therefore, involves interactions and checks among both the judicial and executive branches, as well as the legislative.