by
Jabin
Botsford
–
Pool/Getty
Images)
Yesterday
the
Trump
administration
attempted
one
of
the
crueler
plays
in
the
Project
2025
playbook
—
cutting
off
federal
funds
for
all
federal
public
loans,
grants,
and
other
assistance.
This
resulted
in
hours
of
chaos
and
panic
as
Americans
who
depend
on
those
federal
funds
were
thrown
into
limbo
before
District
of
Columbia
district
court
judge
Loren
L.
AliKhan
issued
a
temporary
injunction
against
the
spending
freeze.
Today
has
resulted
in
even
more
confusion,
as
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
rescinded
the
memo
that
ordered
the
spending
freeze,
but
then
Press
Secretary
Karoline
Leavitt
“clarified”
the
move:
“In
light
of
the
injunction,
OMB
has
rescinded
the
memo
to
end
any
confusion
on
federal
policy
created
by
the
court
ruling
and
the
dishonest
media
coverage.
The
Executive
Orders
issued
by
the
President
on
funding
reviews
remain
in
full
force
and
effect
and
will
be
rigorously
implemented
by
all
agencies
and
departments.
This
action
should
effectively
end
the
court
case
and
allow
the
government
to
focus
on
enforcing
the
President’s
orders
on
controlling
federal
spending.
In
the
coming
weeks
and
months,
more
executive
action
will
continue
to
end
the
egregious
waste
of
federal
funding.”
Which
is
some
prime
doublespeak,
but
it
does
appear
the
Trump
administration
is
moving
forward
with
their
plan
—
despite
the
high
likelihood
it’s
unconstitutional.
And
it’s
more
than
just
libs
that
give
the
funding
cut
the
constitutional
side-eye.
As
reported
by
The
Lever,
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
has
already
weighed
in
on
the
executive’s
ability
to
unilaterally
impound
funds
allocated
by
Congress
and
he
thinks
it’s
a
pretty
bad
idea.
Back
in
1985,
Ronald
Reagan’s
Staff
Secretary
David
Chew wanted
to
know
if
Reagan
could
impound
federal
funds
designated
by
Congress.
Roberts,
then
in
the
White
House
Counsel’s
office,
wrote
a
memo
explaining
his
legal
rationale
that
no,
the
president
can’t
usurp
Congress’s
power
of
the
purse
like
that.
In
that
memo,
Roberts
declared
that
“the
question
of
whether
the
president
has
such
authority
(to
block
congressionally
mandated
spending)
is
not
free
from
doubt,
but
I
think
it
clear
that
he
has
none
in
normal
situations.”Roberts
added:
“We
should
discourage
Chew
and
others
from
considering
impoundment
as
a
viable
budget
planning
option.
Our
institutional
vigilance
with
respect
to
the
constitutional
prerogatives
of
the
presidency
requires
appropriate
deference
to
the
constitutional
prerogatives
of
the
other
branches,
and
no
area
seems
more
clearly
the
province
of
Congress
than
the
power
of
the
purse.”
Daniel
Schuman,
executive
director
of
the
American
Governance
Institute,
thinks
this
should
be
dispositive,
“John
Roberts’
August
1985
memorandum
clearly
articulates
his
legal
opinion
that
the
president
cannot
exceed
the
Impoundment
Control
Act
to
impound
funds
in
‘normal’
situations,
perhaps
not
in
any
circumstances.
Roberts
declares
the
power
of
the
purse
is
the
ultimate
congressional
prerogative.
Impoundment,
he
warns,
cannot
be
used
to
achieve
‘budget
goals,’
yet
the
stated
goal
of
Trump’s
OMB
Memorandum
25-13
is
for
‘advancing
presidential
priorities’
on
a
wide
array
of
issues.
There
is
no
reconciling
Roberts’
views
with
Trump’s
facially
unlawful
impoundment
directive.”
Roberts
isn’t
the
only
Chief
Justice
with
a
pretty
clear
stance
on
the
matter.
While
at
the
Department
of
Justice,
William
Rehnquist
also
thought
the
constitution
prevented
a
president
from
making
that
play:
“With
respect
to
the
suggestion
that
the
President
has
a
constitutional
power
to
decline
to
spend
appropriated
funds,
we
must
conclude
that
existence
of
such
a
broad
power
is
supported
by
neither
reason
nor
precedent,”
Rehnquist
wrote
in
1969
while
serving
as
assistant
attorney
general.
“It
is
in
our
view
extremely
difficult
to
formulate
a
constitutional
theory
to
justify
a
refusal
by
the
president
to
comply
with
a
congressional
directive
to
spend.”Rehnquist
went
on
to
note,
“It
may
be
argued
that
the
spending
of
money
is
inherently
an
executive
function,
but
the
execution
of
any
law
is,
by
definition,
an
executive
function,
and
it
seems
an
anomalous
proposition
that
because
the
executive
branch
is
bound
to
execute
the
laws,
it
is
free
to
decline
to
execute
them.”
All
of
which
is
encouraging
for
those
who
hope
the
court
system
will
stymie
Trump’s
spending
freeze
permanently.
Hopefully
Roberts
still
feels
the
same
about
presidential
power
plays
in
2025.
Earlier:
Trump’s
Budget
Freeze
Just
Constitutional
Fan
Fiction
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1
or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
