Lawfare Daily: The President, Congress, and the Power of the Purse
Apr 29, 2025
auto_awesome
Matt Lawrence, an Associate Professor of Law at Emory, Eloise Pasachoff from Georgetown, and Zach Price from UC Law San Francisco delve into the concept of 'Appropriations Presidentialism.' They discuss how the executive branch seeks to control federal fund allocation, examining historical tensions between Congress and the presidency. The trio also highlights the unique spending tactics of the Trump administration, the intricacies of legal challenges in federal spending, and the evolving balance of power in legislative oversight.
The concept of 'Appropriations Presidentialism' highlights how the executive branch seeks to dominate federal fund allocation against congressional authority.
The history of executive overreach showcases that presidents have often bypassed congressional directives, escalating tensions in the appropriations process.
Judicial review of executive spending actions is complicated by justiciability issues, making it challenging for Congress to enforce oversight effectively.
Deep dives
Understanding OCD and Its Treatment
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is often misunderstood, leading many people to mislabel their preferences for neatness or order as the condition. However, actual OCD involves persistent, unwanted thoughts that cause significant anxiety and guilt, leading individuals to engage in compulsive behaviors to alleviate their distress. Treatment options for OCD include specialized therapies, such as exposure and response prevention, rather than conventional talk therapy. The importance of recognizing and treating OCD is underscored by resources like NoCD, which offers virtual therapy tailored for those affected by this disorder and is covered by various insurance plans.
The Power of the Purse: Presidential and Congressional Dynamics
The relationship between the president and Congress regarding appropriations illustrates a critical power dynamic often referred to as the power of the purse. Congress allocates discretionary federal budget funds through an annual appropriations process, which is described as stable in practice but fragile in legal terms. This distinction between de facto stability and de jure fragility exemplifies the complexities involved in budgetary authority between the legislative and executive branches. The implications of this control extend to the consistency of how taxpayer dollars are managed and the extent to which the president can exercise authority over appropriated funds.
Executive Overreach and Historical Context
Executive overreach in appropriations is not a new phenomenon; it has evolved over time and has been observed in several past administrations. Historically, there have been instances of presidents not adhering to congressional spending directives, often justified by claiming national emergencies or personal priorities. The current administration’s approach represents a significant escalation, with a push towards unilateral spending decisions that can challenge the established norms of Congressional oversight. Recognizing these patterns is crucial to understanding the shifting balance of power and the broader implications for the functioning of government.
Challenges in Legal Oversight of Executive Actions
The legal landscape surrounding oversight of executive spending actions presents numerous challenges, particularly regarding judicial review. Many courts exhibit hesitation to adjudicate spending disputes due to complex justiciability issues, such as the lack of standing or defined causes of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Additionally, the discretionary nature of appropriations can preclude cases from being heard in federal courts, leading to a reliance on the Court of Federal Claims for disputes involving monetary damages. This ambiguity complicates the enforcement of congressional mandates and the overall effectiveness of checks and balances in federal governance.
Implications of Congressional Rescissions on Ongoing Litigation
When Congress successfully rescinds funding, it can significantly affect ongoing legal challenges related to that funding, potentially rendering certain lawsuits moot. If appropriated funds are eliminated, plaintiffs may find that their claims lack standing since the basis for their challenges—such as improper spending—no longer exists. However, if past monetary obligations are involved, rescinding appropriations doesn't absolve the executive branch of liability. Therefore, the relationship between legislative actions and pending litigation is complex and underscores the intricate balance of power within U.S. governance.
In today’s episode, Molly Reynolds, Senior Fellow at Brookings and Senior Editor at Lawfare, sits down with Matt Lawrence, Associate Professor of Law at Emory; Eloise Pasachoff, Professor of Law at Georgetown; and Zach Price, Professor of Law at UC Law San Francisco to discuss a new paper on “Appropriations Presidentialism,” or how the executive branch attempts to control the process of allocating federal funds at the expense of Congress. They cover the history of the Congress, the president, and the courts in this area; what the Trump administration is doing that is different from what we’ve seen in the past; and what might come next in the multitude of current litigation on these issues.
