Several of President Donald Trump’s executive orders involving federal spending have spurred a series of lawsuits that could prompt higher court rulings on the balance of power between the executive and congressional branches.
So far, the administration set goals for freezing or cutting spending by targeting foreign aid programs as well as organizations that support so-called “gender-affirming care,” and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
Multiple groups have alleged that the Trump administration is violating the Constitution’s separation of powers by attempting to halt the flow of money appropriated by Congress. The executive, they say, cannot unilaterally decide not to disburse funds across various agencies.
Multiple courts have agreed, with federal judges issuing temporary restraining orders blocking the administration from restricting funds.
Her ruling was made in response to a memo in which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed agencies to freeze wide swaths of government funding based on multiple executive orders that Trump signed.
Impoundment
Impoundment generally refers to presidents refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress. AliKhan and other federal judges have referenced the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which sets conditions on how presidents can rescind funds.Article I of the Constitution generally gives Congress the power of the purse. It reads in part: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
It’s unclear, however, the extent to which presidents can reallocate or temporarily pause funds. Article II of the Constitution states in part that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
The law’s constitutionality has been debated but the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether it can block funding pauses.
Besides constitutional matters, there are further questions about the discretion that the president receives from the statutes authorizing the specific funding streams that he’s trying to block.
“There’s a lot of discretion that’s given in a variety of grants,” Competitive Enterprise Institute attorney Devin Watkins told The Epoch Times. “Without examining each and every one of those grants ... you can’t know whether the pause is lawful or not.”
Heritage Foundation Vice President John Malcolm told The Epoch Times that,“So long as the statute provides very broad guidelines for the types of organizations that ought to be receiving grants ... it all depends on what the statute says.”
Complicating the legal issues, the administration has also noted that Trump’s orders and the OMB memo don’t directly cut spending but rather direct agencies to find ways to cut spending under applicable law. Agencies also enjoy discretion and could arguably repurpose funds independent of Trump’s or OMB’s orders.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has argued that plaintiffs need to challenge particular agency actions rather than the memo, which the initial lawsuit targeted. AliKhan and two other federal judges expressed concern, however, that agencies were restricting funding due to Trump’s orders and the memo.
In court, multiple organizations have submitted declarations stating that they can’t access funding portals or haven’t received disbursements from the federal government. Individual plaintiffs also submitted declarations in Maryland, stating that hospitals had refused to provide so-called “gender-affirming care” after one of Trump’s orders froze funding for organizations that offer it.
The judge in that case, U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson, defended the nationwide scope of the injunction. “The reason the Executive Orders are unconstitutional—namely that, at minimum, they violate the separation of powers—are applicable to jurisdictions throughout the country,” he said.
“The necessity of a nationwide injunction is underscored by the fact that hospitals all over the country could lose access to all federal funding if they continue to provide gender affirming medical care.”
The Trump administration, meanwhile, has urged courts to limit the scope of relief if they enter any kind of injunction.
Supreme Court
With more than 80 lawsuits and counting against the Trump administration, the Supreme Court should have plenty of opportunities to review the president’s initial actions. A subset of those lawsuits focuses on spending freezes and is working its way through different circuits—opening the possibility of diverging appeals courts rulings on presidential power.The angle from which the Supreme Court will choose to tackle this issue is unclear: Will the justices address presidents’ broad authority to direct or encourage temporary spending freezes? Will they take on the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act? Or will they limit their inquiries to the authority Trump has in various statutes that authorize funding?
“Congress has a very good argument saying that they have the power of the purse, but at the same time … you also want the president to have a check, to some degree,” Joe Luppino-Esposito, Pacific Legal Foundation legal policy deputy director, told The Epoch Times.
“If Congress were to pass something that was blatantly unconstitutional and they wanted to spend money and act on it … that’s obviously within the power of the president to say, ‘No, I don’t believe that’s right.’”
The Supreme Court’s eventual decision could take account of various precedents, including Train v. City of New York (1975). In that case, the court said that President Richard Nixon’s administration had to allot the full amount of money outlined under a water pollution statute rather than a lower amount the president sought to spend.
He added that repealing the law “will restore the balance of power envisioned by our Constitution and empower the President to reject wasteful, unnecessary spending by administrations that voters resoundingly rejected.”
