Here, the Executive has unilaterally deemed that funds Congress appropriated for foreign aid will not be spent. The Executive not only claims his constitutional authority to determine how to spend appropriated funds, but usurps Congress's exclusive authority to dictate whether the funds should be spent in the first place. In advancing this position, Defendants offer an unbridled view of Executive power that the Supreme Court has consistently rejected -- a view that flouts multiple statutes whose constitutionality is not in question, as well as the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Asserting this "vast and generally unreviewable" Executive power and diminution of Congressional power, Defendants do not cite any provision of Article I or Article II of the Constitution. ...
For the reasons above, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction. Consistent with this opinion, it is hereby ORDERED:
* The Restrained Defendants are enjoined from unlawfully impounding congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds and shall make available for obligation the full amount of funds that Congress appropriated for foreign assistance programs in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024.
-- United States District Judge Amir H. Ali, in his Memorandum Opinion and Order in Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition et al, v US Department of State, et al (10 March 2025)
No comments:
Post a Comment