On Wednesday night, Chief Justice John Roberts Stop temporarily Lower court orders to require the Trump administration to make about $2 billion in foreign aid payments Broader attacks on US international development agencies (USA).
In this case, it is important not to read too much for Roberts’ temporary order, State Council v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Alliance. Judges often have the right to hit a “pause” in cases, and they spend more time figuring out how the law requires them to act – in fact, many lower court judges who have stopped Trump administration policies Rely on similar authority when they do. Roberts is likely to issue Wednesday’s order to give himself and his colleagues more time to think about it AIDS vaccine case.
But, for at least two reasons, the current dispute in the Supreme Court is significant. First: This is the first case involved in the Trump era Water storageThis is a legally dubious statement that the president can cancel federal spending under laws enacted by Congress. The Water Storage Control Act of 1974 Very strict placement restrictions About the President’s ability to guess Congress’s spending decisions second – usually the President Congressional permission must be sought Before canceling expenditure.
However, Trump still claims that there is no legislative approval to have the right to do so.
The second reason is, document Trump’s Justice Department recently filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court, and Trump’s legal team appears to reveal how they plan to comply with the Water Storage Control Act and require the president to comply with federal spending laws.
It is worth noting that the Trump administration has at least not argued that the president has inherent constitutional powers to seize funds. Indeed, the Justice Department’s recent application did not even argue that Trump’s decision to stop USDA spending is legal. Instead, the Trump administration advised the federal court lacked the power to issue broad orders to restore the entire government spending cancelled by the government, and those cases must be resolved on a sporadic basis.
Think of it this way: Suppose the Trump administration issued an illegal order prohibiting the government from paying to any contractor named “Susan”. Now assume that the federal government owes 10,000 Susans, seeks a court order to declare this anti-Sasan policy illegal. The Trump administration’s legal arguments suggest that such a court order is not allowed and that each Susan may need to file her own legal action to be paid.
Needless to say, this strategy could greatly hinder efforts to get the Trump administration to comply with the federal spending law. If the Supreme Court accepts the administration’s argument, Trump and his subordinates will still be free to issue general orders to cancel the entire federal spending. Meanwhile, anyone affected by these cancellations may need to retain their own legal counsel, determine which court or federal agency has jurisdiction over its claim, and then file a resolution that may take months or years to resolve. Many of these potential litigants may just give up. Others can go bankrupt while waiting for the government to pay their owes.
The president does not allow Congress to allocate funds
Whether the president can simply refuse to spend money, the question of Congress ordering the executive branch to spend is easy to solve. As future Chief Justice William Rehnquist Memorandum of the Ministry of Justice in 1969“It seems very difficult to develop a constitutional theory to justify the president’s refusal to comply with congressional directives.”
There is no such thing as a constituency in the Constitution that the president can seize funds. The Constitution has some provisions that violate this claim, including one provision for the PresidentPay attention to the faithful enforcement of the law. “This provision imposes the President’s obligation to faithfully enforce any law requiring federal expenditures.
In addition, the Supreme Court currently holds a Republican majority Previously they agreed to Renchart’s 1969 memorandum. As a White House lawyer in 1985, Roberts wrote that the president cannot seize funds in a “normal situation” (although he did use a potentially ominous signal from the United States Agency for International Development, which implies the president’s authority It may be even bigger in cases involving diplomacy). Roberts added:Nothing is more clear than the power of the wallet is the Capitol Province. ”
Similarly, Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a 2013 opinion that he was still a lower court judge at the time, “Even the president has no unilateral power to refuse to spend”The funds allocated by Congress.
Still, Trump signed an executive order seeking to stop federal spending. These include an order from January 20, claiming to impose “90-day pause for U.S. foreign development aid Assessment of process efficiency and consistency with U.S. foreign policy” and domestic spending orders So widespread, it seems to freeze Medicaid (Although the White House has withdrawn from the policy to some extent after triggering a bipartisan rebound).
this AIDS vaccine The case provides the Supreme Court with the first opportunity to weigh Trump’s efforts to stop federal spending. this The Ministry of Justice’s narrow argument At least, Trump’s lawyers would rather postpone a wider showdown because of whether Trump could simply cancel any funds he wanted.
So what are the specific issues of the court AIDS vaccine?
The specific dispute before the Justice was made by two orders issued by Federal District Judge Amir Ali. The first to show that the Trump administration suspends USDA funding Illegal and arbitrary Because the administration has not yet “provided any explanation of why all the blankets of foreign aid from Congress have stopped… are rational pioneers of reviewing plans” in recognition of inefficiency or failure to comply with Trump’s policy goals.
As a result, the ALI temporarily prohibits the government from “suspend, suspend or otherwise blocking the obligations or expenditures of granting diplomatic funds authorized as of January 19”.
The second order attempts to execute the first order requiring the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development to “pay all invoices and letters of credit to lower the request for all contracts For work done before the court enters [first order] February 13. ”
Most of the Trump administration A brief judgeAt the same time, he believes that Judge Ali lacks jurisdiction over the case, and Ali’s orders are too broad because they try to restore payments from specific plaintiffs that they do not owe. AIDS vaccine case. Similarly, Alibaba’s second order requires the State Council to “pay all invoices” for the work completed by a specific date, even if the work is not AIDS vaccine plaintiff.
At least some of these claims are justified. Ministry of Justice, Under the leadership of Biden and Trump administrationslong opposed a “national injunction” (lower court order), which suspended federal policy nationwide rather than sending narrower tailored relief to individual plaintiffs. Some members of the court, most notably Judge Neil Gorsuch, are enthusiastic advocates of the view that broad, national relief must be cut. (I think too Gorch’s position on the national ban has high advantages)
But the Supreme Court ruling prevents judges from issuing widespread injunctions, which will also lead the Trump administration to act illegally. Likewise, the government will be free to issue a wide range of new policies to remove funds that affect millions of Americans. Then, even if the court later determined that the new policy was illegal, the individuals and businesses that owed the money had to file their own lawsuits for repayment.
This imbalance may be Solve through collective action – Litigation that allows multiple parties with similar legal claims to join together in the same proceedings. But there are Restrict who can propose such collective actionIt is unclear whether multiple parties seeking to execute multiple contracts with different terms can show that their cases are similar enough to allow class action to move forward.
All of this is a long way of doing so, it is unlikely that the court will completely limit the president who is determined to cancel federal spending, even if he is illegal. The administrative department is More flexible than the judiciaryIt would be double if the Supreme Court restricts the ability of lower courts to block Trump administration’s policies nationwide.
