Congress’s spending power includes the power to attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206–07 (1987). As a result, the President's duty to enforce the laws, U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, includes honoring Congress's appropriations. 897 F.3d at 1234.
His failure to do so is an abdication of his Constitutional role. 2 U.S.C. §§ 681–688. Congress has not delegated the authority to attach conditions to the receipt of funds to Trump, so he's prohibited by the Constitution from doing so. City of L.A. v. Barr, 929 F.3d 1163, 1175 (9th Cir. 2019).
The Executive Order thus amounts to an end-run around the separation of powers; Trump has no authority to thwart congressional will by canceling appropriations passed by Congress or to ignore a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. 897 F.3d at 1232. Make sense?
And he was never heard from ever again
they never want to stay friends :-(
Actually, I don't normally reply to replies. That just invites vitriol. I asked a question and received an answer. Whether I agree or not doesn't matter. I'm not on the Supreme Court where this will be determined.
Was the answer helpful to you?
Jeepers, even a "thank you for your answer" would be nice. As always, thank you for your explanations.
Since it doesn't confirm their priors, I'm going to say no 😆
The best kind of reply guys are the ones who reply to say they never reply.
That's a weird way to say "I'm a cowardly reply guy'
You are the @dieworkwear.bsky.social of legal threads.