Who Needs Article I?
SCOTUS continues to favor the executive over the legislature.
Via Reuters: US Supreme Court lets Trump withhold $4 billion in foreign aid.
The U.S. Supreme Court sided again on Friday with Donald Trump, allowing his administration to withhold about $4 billion in foreign aid authorized by Congress for the current fiscal year as the Republican president pursues his “America First” agenda.
The case raises questions involving the degree to which a president has the authority to rescind funds Congress has appropriated for programs that do not align with his policies. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse.
The justices for now granted the Justice Department’s request to block Washington-based U.S. District Judge Amir Ali’s order that had directed the administration to promptly take steps to spend the aid at issue in the dispute. Ali’s decision came in a lawsuit by aid groups challenging the administration’s action.
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The court’s three liberal justices dissented.
I understand that this is, yet again, a shadow docket ruling that might be overturned at some point in the future. But yet again, the six conservatives seem utterly unconcerned about (if not actively cheering for)the executive usurping the legislature’s power over the purse.
The court’s liberals, in a dissent written by Justice Elena Kagan, called the ruling an affront to the constitutional principle that power is separated between the three branches – executive, legislative and judicial – of the U.S. government. They noted that the Constitution “gives Congress the power to make spending decisions through the enactment of appropriations laws.”
“If those laws require obligation of the money, and if Congress has not by rescission or other action relieved the Executive of that duty, then the Executive must comply,” Kagan wrote in a dissent joined by fellow liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The administration said in court papers that the money it targeted is “contrary to U.S. foreign policy,” reflecting Trump’s effort to scale back U.S. assistance abroad as part of an “America First” agenda. Trump also has moved to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, the main U.S. foreign aid agency.
The ability of the president to simply not spend money Congress has authorized, or to take apart bureaucracies that Congress created, puts a different spin on the government shutdown than used to be the case.
If the president can ignore the budget, what good are negotiations? Even if the Democrats can extract concessions, SCOTUS is clearing the way for Trump to ignore them.
Speaking of the shadow docket:
I think that the case I am noting in this post takes the victory number to 21.
The fixer court is pretty much saying El Taco would be irreparably harmed if he were forced to obey the law.
Not a surprise. This corrupt MAGA Court already rewrote the constitution to carve out a Trump exception to the rule of law: the Epstein-bestie pederast can crime if said crimes are committed within his scope of duty.
That madness is upstream of Roberts & Co. letting Trump usurp congressional power, pending further slow-walked review. This radical right majority is battling with the Fuller court as 2nd-worst in our short history, behind only odious Taney court.
These will only be decided against the felon’s position if a Dem has been returned to the WH. Now that the cases are back in the district courts and the admin can and will drag out the proceedings as long as possible and then drag out the appeal. After that the supremes can decide to delay hearing the case. And if a Dem wins in 28 the felon’s admin position will be denied.