The Trump administration has filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, requesting that the justices allow the president to withhold billions of dollars in foreign aid funding before the fiscal year ends on September 30. This is part of a broader strategy to contest the authority of Congress over the distribution of federal funds. The Justice Department’s appeal is framed around the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which establishes procedures for the cancellation of congressional appropriations. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that only Congress has the authority to challenge the executive branch’s spending shortfalls, and that legal challenges from aid groups are outside the bounds of the law. He emphasized that the political branches, not the courts, should determine the proper use of funds.
The filing comes amid escalating tensions between the executive and legislative branches over the power of the purse. The administration’s position is that the president has the authority to engage in so-called ‘pocket recissions’—cancellations of funds that occur so close to the fiscal year’s end that it would be impractical for Congress to reverse them. This strategy has drawn concern from lower courts and even some Republican lawmakers. Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that only the comptroller general of the U.S. has the power to challenge allegedly unlawful impoundments. However, the full D.C. Circuit has not yet acted on this ruling, leaving an earlier order by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in effect, requiring the administration to formalize the distribution of foreign aid by September’s end.
The administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court reflects its determination to test the constitutional limits of presidential power. An official from the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, which is challenging the withholding of aid, noted that the administration’s rush to the courts is not unexpected. The coalition’s executive director, Mitchell Warren, criticized the administration for undermining Congress’s role as an equal branch of government. He warned that the Court’s decision on this matter would have significant implications for the balance of power between the branches of government.