Eleanor Finch
The Trump administration has been accused of freezing funding for federal programs and threatening to withhold funds from states and cities that refuse to cooperate with its federal immigration enforcement agenda. This has raised questions about the constitutionality of the president's power to withhold funds. Legal and constitutional experts argue that the president does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally withhold congressionally-approved funds without congressional authorization. The Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, meaning the legislature decides on spending, not the executive branch. Courts have also ruled that the president's attempt to withhold funds violates both statutory and constitutional principles, with some arguing that it could be a betrayal of their oath.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Trump's actions | Freezing funding, amending or repealing rules, denying citizenship to children born in the US, signing executive orders to withhold funding provided by Congress |
| Legal experts' opinions | Trump's actions are illegal and unconstitutional, Trump does not have constitutional authority to ignore a statute that establishes a department or agency, Trump's actions violate multiple federal statutes, Trump's actions interfere with Congress's appropriation of federal funds |
| Court rulings | Trump's actions violate both statutory and constitutional principles, Trump's freeze on funding violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Trump's actions violate the 10th Amendment rights of states |
| Trump's defence | The Constitution gives the President the right to impound funds, Thomas Jefferson halted funding for gunboats to patrol the Mississippi River |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Trump's threat to withhold funds from cities is a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers
- The President does not have the constitutional authority to withhold appropriated funds without Congress's approval
- Trump's attempt to withhold funds from communities across America is illegal and unconstitutional
- The Supreme Court has ruled that the President cannot amend an underlying statute by withholding funds
- The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts the President's ability to withhold congressionally-approved funding
Trump's threat to withhold funds from cities is a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers
Trump's actions in attempting to withhold funds from cities and states that refuse to cooperate with his federal immigration enforcement agenda are legally dubious and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has been clear that under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot force states or cities to carry out federal immigration enforcement actions.
Previous administrations have tried and failed to push similar measures, and courts have repeatedly ruled that such attempts violate both statutory and constitutional principles. Multiple courts have temporarily blocked Trump's dangerous freeze from going into effect, with two federal courts issuing temporary restraining orders prohibiting the administration from freezing funding.
Trump's legal team would argue that the "Constitution gives the President the right to impound funds," but this argument contradicts the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, a Nixon-era federal law that requires the president to get permission from Congress to refuse to spend appropriated funds. Trump's attempt to withhold funds from cities is a blatant violation of the Constitution's separation of powers and a threat to the functioning of democracy.
Enumerated Powers: Expanding Federal Reach and Authority
You may want to see also
The President does not have the constitutional authority to withhold appropriated funds without Congress's approval
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 further reinforces this, requiring the President to seek permission from Congress before refusing to spend appropriated funds. Despite this, the Trump Administration has attempted to withhold funding from various federal programs and communities, arguing that the President has the right to impound funds. This has been met with widespread criticism and legal challenges, with two federal courts issuing temporary restraining orders prohibiting the Administration from freezing funding.
The President's attempts to withhold funding have been deemed unlawful and unconstitutional, as they override Congress's spending power and harm communities by blocking investments, halting infrastructure projects, and impacting vital programs. Furthermore, the Trump Administration's actions interfere with Congress's appropriation of funds, threatening the functioning of democracy and violating statutory and constitutional principles.
While the President may condition funding if authorized by Congress, their wholesale threat to withhold funds from cities is a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers. The Administration's belief in a more powerful executive branch and a less significant Congress undermines the system of checks and balances designed by the Framers.
Justice Breyer's Approach to Interpreting the Constitution
You may want to see also
Trump's attempt to withhold funds from communities across America is illegal and unconstitutional
Trump's actions threaten to block investments that Congress has delivered for communities across the country, which will hurt families, halt projects to rebuild roads and bridges, kill good-paying new jobs, and more. This includes funding for vital programs such as disaster relief, public safety, public health, infrastructure, and small business loans.
Trump's legal team could argue that the "Constitution gives the President the right to impound funds", and cite how Thomas Jefferson halted funding for gunboats to patrol the Mississippi River. However, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, a Nixon-era federal law, requires the president to get permission from Congress before refusing to spend appropriated funds.
Courts across the country have upheld the right of states and localities to refuse to participate in federal immigration enforcement, and the Supreme Court has been clear that the federal government cannot force states or cities to carry out these actions. Despite this, the Trump administration has threatened to cut off funding to states and cities that refuse to cooperate with its federal immigration enforcement agenda, which is legally dubious and unconstitutional.
Hamilton's Belief: National Bank and the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Supreme Court has ruled that the President cannot amend an underlying statute by withholding funds
The Court's decision sets a precedent that the President cannot unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress, as doing so would effectively amend the underlying statute, exceeding the President's powers. This precedent was reaffirmed in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, where the Supreme Court ruled that threatening to withhold all Medicaid funding unless states agreed to expand the program was unconstitutional coercion.
Despite this, the Trump Administration has attempted to withhold funding from various programs and communities, arguing that the Constitution gives the President the right to impound funds. These actions have been deemed illegal and unconstitutional by legal experts and members of Congress, who assert that the power to appropriate funds lies exclusively with Congress.
Trump's attempts to withhold funding have faced legal challenges, with federal courts issuing temporary restraining orders and rulings that his actions violate both statutory and constitutional principles. These rulings highlight the importance of the system of checks and balances in the US government, ensuring that the executive branch cannot exceed its powers and infringe on the legislative powers of Congress.
Exploring the USS Constitution's Sails: A Historical Overview
You may want to see also
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts the President's ability to withhold congressionally-approved funding
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) restricts the president's ability to withhold congressionally-approved funding. The Act was passed in response to President Nixon's refusal to spend certain federal funds. It outlines a process that the president must follow if they want to delay or cancel funding that has been approved by Congress.
The ICA grants Congress the power of the purse, meaning that it has the authority to approve budgets and appropriate funds. The president and executive branch agencies are then responsible for administering those funds. The ICA provides a fast-track legislative process that allows the president to request that Congress considers a funding change.
The Act divides impoundments into two categories: rescissions and deferrals. If the president wishes to spend less money than Congress provided, they must first secure a law providing congressional approval to rescind the funding. They must send a special message to Congress, identifying the amount, reasons, and effects of the proposed rescission. Upon transmission of this message, the president can withhold funding in the affected accounts for up to 45 legislative session days. If approval is not granted within 45 days, any withheld funds must be made available.
The ICA also prescribes three narrow circumstances in which the president may propose to defer funding for a program: providing for contingencies, achieving budgetary savings, and as specifically provided by law. The president may not withhold funding for Social Security or Medicare.
Despite the ICA, the Trump Administration has attempted to withhold funding provided by Congress. This has led to concerns that the administration has violated the ICA and executive overreach. Legal experts argue that the president does not have the constitutional authority to withhold funds unilaterally. The Supreme Court has also ruled against presidential attempts to withhold funds, upholding the congressional power of the purse.
The Constitution's Impact on Slavery: Settled or Unsettled?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, it is not. Under the Constitution, Congress – not the president – has the "power of the purse," which means the legislature decides what funds should be spent and where. The executive branch is bound by congressional appropriations. Unless Congress authorizes it, the executive branch cannot unilaterally withhold, alter, or add new conditions to funding.
If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching order would mean that seniors could go hungry, refugee resettlement agencies would close their doors, addiction treatment clinics would cancel appointments, and schools would need to freeze meal programs. It would also impact disaster relief, public safety, public health, infrastructure, and small business loans.
Courts across the country have upheld the right of states and localities to say no to participating in federal immigration enforcement. Courts may hold those violating their orders in criminal contempt of court, punishing them with fines or jail time. Trump could pardon any federal officials convicted of criminal contempt, but federal courts could also hold any recalcitrant officials in civil contempt of court.
