Congress wields the constitutional power of the purse, but President Donald Trump’s forceful assertion of executive power is testing even this fundamental tenet of U.S. democracy.
His administration has already cut or threatened to cut billions of dollars in previously approved federal spending and is now seeking even more funding during the government shutdown.
States, cities, nonprofits and other groups have responded with more than 150 lawsuits accusing the Republican administration of an illegal power grab.
An Associated Press analysis shows that these lawsuits have largely succeeded so far in at least temporarily blocking the Republican president’s spending measures. But most legal battles are far from over, and the Supreme Court, where Trump has had more success so far, could have the final say in at least some of them.
The conservative majority of the court was open to numerous emergency objections from the administration, at least in preliminary rulings. Legal experts say two recent court decisions could bode well for the government’s efforts to gain more control over government spending. Here’s a look at the current legal status and what may lie ahead:
So far, courts have predominantly ruled against the administration
An AP analysis shows that court orders in early October at least temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s decisions in 66 of 152 lawsuits over federal spending. In 37 of these cases, the courts had allowed the administration to proceed. In 26 cases, a judge still had to decide on the matter. The remaining 23 were either dropped or consolidated.
The count reflects decisions from district courts, appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court and will almost certainly change as cases progress.
The spate of litigation reflects not only the administration’s aggressive efforts to gain control over spending but also the Republican-controlled Congress’s unwillingness to take action, said Zachary Price, a professor of constitutional law at the University of California College of the Law in San Francisco.
“Congress seems to be following its partisan interests more than its institutional interests, and that is putting a lot of pressure on the courts,” he said.
It is hard to say how much money the administration withheld
Government watchdogs say the government is blatantly ignoring the Impoundment Control Act of 1974’s requirement to report frozen funds to Congress.
Investigations by Democrats on the House and Senate budget committees found that the administration froze, canceled or attempted to block a total of $410 billion in early September. That represents about 6% of the federal budget for the year that ended Sept. 30.
The administration has disputed that figure.
Since the shutdown began this month, the administration has sought even more funding, particularly for places represented by Democrats.
The Trump administration is taking its cue from Nixon
Legal scholars say no president since Richard Nixon has tried to make such massive, unilateral cuts. The moves reflect an sweeping view of executive power that runs counter to the Impoundment Control Act, court rulings and the Constitution, which gives Congress supremacy over spending, experts say.
“The power they have claimed is the power to defer and withhold funds year-round without Congress taking action,” said Cerin Lindgrensavage, an attorney at Protect Democracy who is involved in several lawsuits against the administration. “This is a theft of Congress’s financial power.”
In a message to Congress earlier this year, the White House said it was “committed to putting America’s fiscal house in order by cutting government spending that is inflated, weaponized and wasteful.”
White House budget director Russ Vought, a proponent of withholding federal funds, argues that presidents have long had the power to spend less money than Congress has approved if they can reduce waste or be more capable, and that this power is needed to tackle the country’s massive debt.
The government shutdown opened a fresh opportunity to cut spending, he said on “The Charlie Kirk Show” this month.
“If all I can do is work on saving money, then I’m going to do everything I can to look for opportunities to downsize in areas where this administration has thought, ‘This is our path to a balanced budget.'”
The government has cut entire agencies
The 152 cases the AP identified involve closing government agencies and offices, eliminating grants and other support and attaching fresh conditions to federal funding.
The government has used the cuts or the threat of cuts to push through its policies on gender, race, immigration and other issues.
But it’s not just about money. The funds supported jobs, school lunches, health programs, scientific research, infrastructure projects, foreign aid, disaster preparedness, education initiatives and other programs.
Notable rulings against the administration include restoring funding to 14 states that filed suit over withheld nearly $2 billion for electric car chargers, as well as blocking potentially sweeping funding cuts to some of the nation’s largest cities due to their “sanctuary zone” immigration policies.
Judges have raised constitutional concerns
Judges who have ruled against the administration have often found sturdy reasons to conclude that the cuts or threats of cuts would violate the Constitution’s separation of powers by usurping Congress’s authority over spending.
They also ruled that the steps were most likely arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
Judges who have sided with the government have compared at least some of the legal claims before them to contract disputes that fall before another court: the U.S. Circuit Court.
This court, which dates back to the mid-19th century, hears lawsuits from citizens seeking money from the federal government. Called a “people’s court,” it is separate from the district courts that handle most high-profile litigation against the government.
The Supreme Court has often sided with the White House
Conservative Supreme Court justices have allowed the government to move forward with plans to close the Education Department, freeze $5 billion in foreign aid and cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher training and research supported by the National Institutes of Health.
These decisions may make it harder to challenge the government’s spending cuts, although the Supreme Court has not yet considered their final legality or overturned lower court decisions.
In the National Institutes of Health case, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in August that grant cancellation lawsuits generally cannot be fully heard by federal district courts. Instead, plaintiffs must recover any funds in federal tort court and turn to district courts if they want to challenge the guidelines that led to the subsidies being terminated.
The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision is not yet clear, but it could force plaintiffs in the grant funding cases to start over in a fresh courtroom. In some cases, plaintiffs may need to decide whether to sue on two fronts.
In the foreign aid case, the Supreme Court pointed out in a 6-3 ruling in September that the Impoundment Control Act does not give private parties the right to sue over so-called pocket reprisals.
Then the president petitions Congress not to spend approved funds, but does so so behind schedule in the fiscal year that Congress has no time to act and the funds go unspent.
Trump told House Speaker Mike Johnson in August that he was reversing $5 billion in foreign aid approved by Congress, effectively cutting the budget without going through the Legislature.
Although the Supreme Court emphasized that its decision was preliminary, legal experts say it could make it easier for the Trump administration to apply the tactic again.
___
Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.
