Congress has constitutional purse power, but President Donald Trump’s insistence on executive power is testing even that fundamental tenet of American democracy.
His administration has already canceled or threatened to cancel. billions of dollars Of the previously approved federal spending, we now want to pursue that more money meanwhile government shutdown.
States, cities, nonprofits, and other organizations are doing all of the above. 150 lawsuits He accused the Republican administration of illegally seizing power.
So far, these lawsuits have largely succeeded in blocking the Republican president’s spending moves, at least temporarily, according to an Associated Press analysis. But most of the legal battles are not over yet, with President Trump taking the case to the Supreme Court. So far more successfulmay make final decisions on at least some of them.
The court’s conservative majority has accepted many emergency appeals from the administration, at least in preliminary rulings. Legal experts say the court’s two recent rulings could bode well for the administration as it seeks greater control over government spending. Let’s take a look at the current legal score and what could happen next.
Courts have so far ruled mostly against the regime.
As of early October, court orders had at least temporarily blocked Trump administration decisions in 66 of 152 lawsuits over federal spending, according to an Associated Press analysis. In 37 of these cases, courts allowed the administration to proceed. In 26 of the cases, judges have not yet ruled on the issue. The remaining 23 were abolished or merged.
This number reflects decisions from district courts, courts of appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court, and will almost certainly change as the case progresses.
Zachary Price, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, San Francisco School of Law, said the flurry of lawsuits reflects not only the administration’s aggressive efforts to wrest control over spending, but also the Republican-controlled Congress’ unwillingness to fight back.
“Congress appears to be pursuing partisan interests rather than institutional interests, and that puts a lot of pressure on the courts,” he said.
It’s hard to say how much money the government is holding back.
Government watchdogs say the government is blatantly ignoring its 1974 Seizure Control Act obligation to report funding freezes to Congress.
An investigation by Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations committees estimated that the administration was seeking to freeze, cancel or block spending totaling $410 billion as of early September. This represents about 6% of the federal budget for the year ending September 30th.
The administration disputes that figure.
Since the shutdown began this month, the government Aimed to raise further fundsmostly in places represented by Democrats.
The Trump administration has adopted President Nixon’s views.
Legal scholars say no president since Richard Nixon has attempted such large-scale, unilateral cuts. The movement is A broader perspective on executive power Experts say this violates the Confiscation Control Act, court rulings and the Constitution, which gives Congress the upper hand in spending.
“The power they’re claiming is the ability to delay or withhold funding throughout the year without input from Congress,” said Selin Lindgren-Savage, a lawyer with Protect Democracy who has worked on multiple lawsuits against the administration. “It’s a theft of Congress’ power.”
In a message to Congress earlier this year, the White House said it was “woke and committed to restoring America’s fiscal health by cutting weaponized and wasteful government spending.”
Russ Vought, White House Budget Director, said: Proponents of withholding tax The Federal Fund has long argued that presidents have the power to spend less than Congress appropriates if they can cut waste or create efficiencies, and that they need the power to address the nation’s massive debt.
He said on “The Charlie Kirk Show” this month that the government shutdown has opened up new opportunities to cut spending.
“If all we can do is save money, we’re going to do everything in our power to look for opportunities to cut back in areas where this administration thought, “This is the path to a balanced budget.”
The administration reduced the entire government agency.
The 152 cases identified by The Associated Press challenge the shutdown of government offices or agencies, the cancellation of grants and other aid, or the imposition of new conditions on federal funding.
The administration has used cuts, or the threat of cuts, to try to impose its policies. sex, raceimmigration and other issues.
But it’s not just money that’s at stake. The fund supported employment, school meals, health programs, scientific research, infrastructure projects, foreign aid, disaster preparedness, education efforts, and other programs.
Notable judgments against the regime include: recovery of funds 14 states have filed suit over nearly $2 billion withheld for electric vehicle chargers and to block potentially broader funding cuts to some states. the country’s largest city Regarding their “sanctuary” immigration policy.
Judges raise constitutional concerns
Judges who rule against the administration often find strong reasons to conclude that spending cuts or threats of cuts violate the Constitution’s separation of powers by usurping Congress’ authority.
They also ruled that the move was likely arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act, the law that governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
The administration’s judges have likened at least some of their legal claims to contract disputes that belong in another court, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The court traces its origins to the mid-1800s and handles cases brought by citizens seeking money from the federal government. The court, known as the “People’s Court,” is separate from the local courts that handle most high-profile cases against the regime.
The Supreme Court often sides with the White House
For now, the high court’s conservative justices have allowed the administration to move forward with its plans: Shut down the Department of Education, Freezes $5 billion in foreign aid and cut Hundreds of millions of dollars for teacher training and Research supported by the National Institutes of Health.
These decisions could make it harder to challenge the administration’s spending cuts, but the high court has not yet considered their ultimate legality or overturning lower court rulings.
In the National Institutes of Health case, the high court ruled 5-4 in August that lawsuits over grant revocation generally cannot be handled entirely in federal district courts. Instead, plaintiffs must sue in the Court of Federal Claims for money and in district court if they want to challenge the guidelines that led to the termination of their subsidies.
The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision is not yet clear, but plaintiffs in subsidy cases may be forced to start over in a new court. In some cases, a plaintiff may need to decide whether to sue on two fronts.
In the foreign aid case, the Supreme Court suggested in a 6-3 decision in September that the Seize Control Act does not give private entities the right to sue on so-called issues. Pocket cancellation.
That’s when the president submits a request to Congress not to spend authorized funds, but the request is made so late in the fiscal year that Congress has no time to act and the funds remain unspent.
In August, President Trump notified House Speaker Mike Johnson that he was revoking a portion of the $5 billion budget approved by Congress. foreign aideffectively cutting the budget without going through the legislature.
Although the Supreme Court emphasized that the decision is temporary, legal experts say it could make it easier for the Trump administration to use this tactic again.
___
Associated Press writer Lindsey Whitehurst contributed to this report.
