Washington A long-running court dispute over the fundamental constitutional premise that Congress has the authority to determine how to spend taxpayer money is being fueled by the Trump administration’s attempt to withhold government funding.
Similar to President Donald Trump’s recent executive order on birthright citizenship, the dispute is igniting legal action that may soon reach the Supreme Court, with some Democrats already indicating that they intend to file a lawsuit.
The confrontation began when Trump’s Office of Management and Budget released a statement on Monday ordering an immediate halt on spending on federal programs and aid.
Even though the financing was authorized by Congress and signed into law, the administration stated that the goal is to assess such programs to make sure they are in line with Trump’s vision. The administration stated in a new statement released by OMB on Tuesday that the directive is exempt from the Impoundment Control Act and does not amount to a spending freeze.
Sam Bagenstos, the general counsel for OMB under then-President Joe Biden, stated, “It seems obvious to me that the Trump administration is desperate to take this matter to the Supreme Court.” It’s obvious that the Trump administration believes their court is on their side.
Congress has what is known as the “power of the purse” since the Constitution expressly gives it the authority to impose taxes and spend money. In conflicts involving the separation of powers, it is the main power that Congress has over the president.
Josh Chafetz, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, stated that if it is taken away, the Congress will be unable to do much to stop the president’s intransigence.
In a statement released Tuesday morning, Democratic Connecticut Attorney General William Tong stated that attorneys general across are getting ready to take immediate legal action to defend our states against the possibility of losing federal funding.
There has already been one lawsuit brought by different nonprofit organizations. There may also be other litigation.
According to a spokesperson for the watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, “our lawyers are in a series of meetings on that very subject today.”
The Impoundment Control Act, which was passed in 1974 to limit the president’s authority over the budget, would probably be brought up by those opposing Trump’s decision to withhold funding. This came after former President Richard Nixon attempted to cut funding for initiatives he opposed, as Trump has stated he intends to do.
According to the statute, the president may temporarily withhold funds, but only after informing Congress and not on the basis of policy. A spending halt may also be justified by the president’s request to Congress to revoke spending decisions.
Russ Vought, Trump’s candidate to lead the OMB, hinted to a possible legal dispute by restating his opinion that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional during his most recent Senate confirmation hearing. Vought hasn’t been verified yet.
Mark Paoletta, the general counsel for OMB appointed by Trump, is a major defender of Vought’s legal position. Paolettaco authored an article prior to the election arguing for the president to have extensive powers, such as the ability to refuse funds.
According to the article, the President may decide how much money to spend on appropriations, just as he or she may choose not to fully enforce all criminal laws.
The Supreme Court’s decision last year that concluded Trump had extensive protection from prosecution was one example of the article’s citation of the president’s power over the other branches of government.
A clause in the Constitution requiring the president to ensure that the laws are faithfully carried out could also be the subject of litigation.
Although there have been past conflicts between presidents and Congress over spending on certain problems, Jed Shugerman, a professor at Boston University School of Law, said that this one is unique because it is so wide-ranging.
He went on to say that the egregious and widespread impoundment of allotted monies is the anomalous aspect.
Should a federal judge stop the Trump administration from implementing its intentions, there is a chance that a future litigation on the matter may swiftly make its way to the Supreme Court.
Legal experts say this could be one of several difficult legal battles the government has chosen, despite the court’s conservative 6-3 majority, which includes three Trump appointees.
Additionally, there are Supreme Court rulings that have recognized limitations on the president’s authority regarding the allocation of funds.
The court decided against the Nixon administration in an effort to deny money for water pollution reduction in 1974, about the time the Impoundment Control Act was passed.
On a related topic, the court declared in 1998 that a law that permitted the president to veto certain provisions of legislation rather than the entire text of laws passed by Congress was unlawful.
According to Bagenstos, the Trump administration might be exaggerating its chances of winning the Supreme Court.
He stated that the court is more likely to find the Impoundment Control Act to be constitutional. In some ways, though, it’s up for grabs.