President Donald Trump has an executive ordinance after signing it during the inauguration parade in rooms for Capital One Arena on January 20, 2025 in Washington (photo of Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Washington – Federal Court of Appeal on Wednesday annulled the court decision of a lower instance, which required Trump’s administration to spend foreign dollars approved by the Congress.
But instead of dealing with the central argument of the claim – that the president cannot refuse to spend the money approved by the legislators who have the power of the bag – the District Court in a potentially significant decision stated that the organizations that submitted the case do not have the right to do so.
Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson wrote in it 33-page opinion that only the controller general who runs Government Bureau of ResponsibilityHe has the right to introduce processes when the president stops or refuses to spend funds approved by the Congress. Gao is an independent, impartial guard agency who works for Congress.
“Since scholarship holders do not have a reason for the operation, we do not have to deal with the advantages of whether the government violated the constitution, violating the expenditure of the congress through the alleged violations of the Act on funds 2024, ICA and the Act on adversity to deficiency,” Henderson said. ICA is Act on stop controlwhich is a legal mechanism with which the president can delay or suspend funds.
Henderson was nominated to the District Court in 1990 by President George HW Bush, a few years after President Ronald Reagan nominated her as the Federal District Judge in 1986.
Henderson wrote that she and judge Gregory G. Katsas, nominated by President Donald Trump, said “the District Court used the freedom to grant a preliminary order” for several reasons.
Both Republican and Democratic General Prosecutors submitted Amicus in this case, and Republicans on the side of Trump’s administration. The case arose when Trump signed the order on the day of the inauguration of freezing some expenses for foreign aid.
Henderson wrote that “within a few weeks the Department of State and USAID suspended or completed thousands of grant awards.”
“It is our duty to check the president”
Judge Florence Y. PAN, nominated by President Joe Biden, published 46-page separate opinionArguing the ruling of her two colleagues, it was “procedural and substantively defective.”
“It is our duty to check the president when he violates the law and exceeds his constitutional power,” wrote. “We don’t do it here.”
The Lord wrote that she did not agree with the opinion of the majority, that Trump suspending some financing of foreign aid was “a simple violation of the detention act, which should be dealt with by the controller general.”
“In this case, the President’s violation of the Act on stop control is beaten,” wrote. “This statute is a mechanism to the president for a legal attempt to confuse funds, and his lack of compliance with prescribed procedures is proof that he actually refused to commit funds against Congress.”
Deliberate financing of public media
This year, the Trump administration used the Act on stop control, this year, When it asked Congress Cancel funding worth $ 9.4 billion for corporations for public broadcast programs and various foreign assistance programs.
House he voted mainly along the party line approve the full demand in mid -June.
Republicans of the Senate approved the bill In July after maintaining the full financing of the president’s emergency plan to aid AIDS or Pepfar.
House GOP legislators Then I cleaned the bill In the case of Trump’s signature just before the end of the 45-day clock.
Trump’s administration sees “a great win”
Several members of the Trump administration, including the Management Director and the Director for Budget Russ Vaught and Prosecutor General Pam Bondi, cheered the District Court’s decision in positions on social media.
“In its judgment 2-1, the DC circuit raised an order ordering President Trump to spend hard-earned dollars of taxpayers on prodigal foreign assistance projects,” wrote Bondi. “We will continue to effectively protect the basic presidential authorities against excessive judgments.”
Vought wrote that the ruling was “a great win!”
OMB spokesman wrote in a statement that the ruling was the victory of the White House.
“The radical groups of left dark money use a court system to take control of US foreign policy,” the spokesman said. “Today’s decision prevents these private groups from malicious interfering in the president’s ability to issue foreign aid in a way as laws and in adapting to his first American policy.”
Lauren Bateman, a lawyer in the Citizen Public Group, and the main lawyer in the lawsuit, wrote in a statement that the court’s decision was a “significant failure in the case of the rule of law and the risk of further erosion of the basic principles of the distribution of power.
“We will look for further review from the court, and our lawsuit will be continued regardless of this, because we are looking for a permanent relief regarding an illegal solution by the administration of the vast majority of foreign assistance. In the meantime, countless people will suffer from diseases, hunger and death because of an unrestricted administration decision regarding the deduction of helping a life -saving life from the world.”
