this Supreme Court Give up briefly to the president on Tuesday trump card In the fight he refused to spend $4 billion in foreign aid funds.
The Justice stopped the lower court’s ruling with a brief order, which directed the president to take steps to start payments.
The “stay” of the lower court ruling is intended to give parties more opportunities to submit a summary of the case. Justice has brought the group to challenge the president until the argument is made on Friday.
gentlemen. trump card An attempt is being made to “bag revoke” to delay funds until after the end of the fiscal year on September 30. He argued that, by law, Congress To revoke the money, he doesn’t have to spend it now, it expires at the end of the month.
This is the second time Supreme Court Has intervened in the case.
In February, it largely supported the Biden-appointed Judge Amir Ali. In that early ruling, the Supreme Court supported Judge Ali’s order, i.e. spending money, although High Court Urge him to be more tolerant on the schedule.
U.S. Deputy Attorney General D. John Sauer asked court Intervened earlier this week, saying Justice Ali is intervening in the core spending decision Congress and the President.
Congress The money was allocated last year. gentlemen. trump card Billions of dollars were initially locked down, and earlier this month, more than $10 billion had not been spent earlier this month.
Mr Saul said the government would spend most of it.
But sir trump card Asked Congress $4 billion was withdrawn. Capitol Hill has not taken action yet. According to the law, the president can postpone the spending 45 days after sending a formal evacuation proposal.
gentlemen. trump cardHowever, by the end of the fiscal year (currency maturity) is less than 45 days away.
The group that sued Mr. trump card Say that standing cannot be allowed.
“The government’s theory is that these institutions do not have to comply with enacted legislation, requiring them to spend money because the president has unilaterally proposed legislation to revoke these statutory mandates, and fundamentally, our constitutional structure fundamentally subverts our constitutional structure.”
Judge Ali largely agreed in his ruling on September 3.
“The appropriations law remains law, despite the proposal to revoke,’Congress He wrote that the legal landscape has not been changed. ” Supreme Court precedent. “The defendant is therefore still responsible for complying with the Appropriations Act unless and until Congress It has indeed changed the law. ”
