Dahlia Lithwick chats with Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional law expert and author of "The Shadow Docket," about the recent federal funding freeze and its implications. They dissect the legal chaos resulting from the White House's memo halting federal grants, raising alarms over potential executive overreach. Vladeck highlights the constitutional crises this could trigger, drawing parallels to Nixon's tactics. The conversation underscores the fragility of checks and balances in the current political climate and the dangers of prioritizing policy over law.
The White House's funding freeze poses a constitutional crisis, challenging the balance of power between executive authority and congressional appropriations.
Legal challenges to the OMB memo could redefine the Supreme Court's role in upholding constitutional governance and legislative authority.
Deep dives
Constitutional Meltdown and Federal Authority
A significant constitutional crisis emerges as a memo from the White House Office of Management and Budget orders all federal agencies to pause grants and loans, citing a need to reassess compliance with new directives. The memo characterizes funding programs related to 'Marxist equity, transgenderism, and Green New Deal social engineering policies' as wasteful. This move comes amid broader concerns about governmental integrity, including the dismissals of key inspectors general and a crackdown on immigration policies. Experts warn that this situation signals a power grab by the Trump administration that undermines both Congress and the judicial system, raising alarms about authoritarian tendencies.
Legal Implications of the OMB Memo
The memo's implications for the federal budget are vast, affecting hundreds of billions in funding for state and local programs. It creates confusion regarding which federal aid is halted, particularly distinguishing between funds going directly to individuals versus organizations. While the memo attempts to clarify its scope with follow-up Q&A, it remains legally questionable under the Impoundment Control Act, which limits a president's ability to withhold appropriated funds. Observers highlight that the chaotic application of this directive could lead to widespread disruption across various sectors reliant on federal funding.
Presidential Power and the Impoundment Control Act
The discussion emphasizes the tension between executive authority and congressional appropriations as delineated by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This act seeks to regulate the president's ability to withhold appropriated funds, requiring a formal process for requesting such actions, which the current administration has ignored. Critics assert that by bypassing established legal frameworks, Trump’s administration risks further eroding the balance of power between the branches of government. The refusal to adhere to the law's requirements suggests an alarming precedent where presidential prerogative may override legislative authority.
Potential Judicial Outcomes and Constitutional Integrity
As legal challenges to the OMB memo are anticipated, the role of the Supreme Court in maintaining constitutional governance comes into focus. There is concern that if the court were to validate the administration's overreach, it could significantly weaken Congress's power over the purse and set a precedent for unrestricted executive actions. While past rulings have affirmed congressional appropriations as a fundamental legislative function, the current landscape raises questions about the court's willingness to confront executive defiance. The implications of these judicial decisions extend beyond immediate policy, potentially shaping the future of the United States’ constitutional framework.
Amicus is coming to you with an extra episode because of the five-alarm threat to the balance of power in the wake of Monday and Tuesday’s memos from the White House Office of Management and Budget freezing vast tranches of federal funding. As agencies, states, and nonprofits scramble to figure out if they can make payroll or even keep the lights on, a hugely significant legal battle is brewing over what, if any, actual restraint remains on this administration’s vision of presidential power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Stephen Vladeck of Georgetown University Law Center to understand the ramifications of a flimsy memo that threatens the very structure of government as we know it in the United States.
Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.