The Supreme Court brushed aside a lower court ruling Friday and cleared the way for President Trump to do a “pocket rescission” of $4 billion in foreign assistance money Congress approved but he doesn’t want to spend.
In a brief order, the majority said Mr. Trump’s ability to carry out foreign policy trumps the needs of the nongovernmental organizations that were counting on the money for their plans.
The court stressed that it has not issued a final ruling in the matter, but in putting the lower judge’s decision on hold, it clears the path for Mr. Trump to block the money going out right now. And since the money is due to expire at the end of this month, when the fiscal year ends, that amounts to a victory for the president.
“The government, at this early stage, has made a sufficient showing that the Impoundment Control Act precludes respondents’ suit, brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, to enforce the appropriations at issue here,” the court said.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, saying the court was once again rushing in on its emergency docket to give Mr. Trump a win when it should put the matter off for a full discussion.
“The standard for granting emergency relief is supposed to be stringent. The Executive has not come close to meeting it here,” she wrote.
“I appreciate that the majority refrains from offering a definitive view of this dispute and the questions raised in it. But the effect of its ruling is to allow the Executive to cease obligating $4 billion in funds that Congress appropriated for foreign aid, and that will now never reach its intended recipients,” she said.
The ruling amounts to a tacit approval of the “pocket rescission” strategy.
Under the law, a president who objects to spending can send a rescissions package to Congress asking lawmakers to revoke the money. That also creates a 45-day grace period when the president doesn’t need to spend the money.
In this case, by the time Mr. Trump sent the rescissions to Capitol Hill, that grace period lasted beyond the end of the fiscal year. So he has effectively run out the clock and does not have to spend the money.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali had rejected that theory.
He said the law allows Mr. Trump to determine how money is spent, but he cannot decide not to spend money Congress has lawfully approved.
“The appropriations acts remain law and, notwithstanding the rescission proposal, ’Congress has not altered the legal landscape,’” he wrote, citing Supreme Court precedent. “Defendants accordingly remain under a duty to comply with the appropriations laws unless and until Congress does change the law.”
