President Donald Trump’s choice to head the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington D.C. received an education on the First Amendment recently from the dean of Georgetown Law School.
reminded the prosecutor
He cannot control how the school conducts its teaching. A further constitutional lesson emerged from a federal judge in the nation’s capital this week, providing insight into the division of governmental powers within the lawsuit.
Trump’s foreign aid funds freeze
.
“The distribution and management of international assistance has been a collaborative effort between our two governmental divisions,” stated U.S. District Judge Amir Ali.
wrote Monday
. The Biden appointee recounted the basic notion that Congress has the “power of the purse” and appropriates funds toward certain foreign policy aims, while the president “decides how to spend those funds in faithful execution of the law.”
He pointed out that this case “marks a deviation from the well-established constitutional alliance,” as the executive branch has “arbitrarily decided that funds allocated by Congress for international assistance will not be utilized.” This stance presents an unrestricted interpretation of presidential authority that the Supreme Court has repeatedly dismissed.
To support his ruling
partially granting
a preliminary injunction against the government, Ali cited writings from Republican-appointed justices to set the backdrop for his decision affirming the administration’s — and Congress’ — role in our system.
The judge cited rejections of executive overreach in foreign policy from Chief Justice
John Roberts
, Justice
Brett Kavanaugh
and the late Republican Party luminary Antonin Scalia, who wrote an opinion alongside Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, which
observed that
England had granted the King sole authority over foreign policies; however, the United States “had different plans” and “implemented a Constitution that distributes the responsibility for the nation’s international affairs between the legislative and executive branches.”
Drawing from Roberts’ statement that this equilibrium is “solidly set,” Ali asserted that he was upholding these well-established tenets of our Constitution. He mentioned that the plaintiff organizations filing the suit against the government’s comprehensive shutdown would probably prevail with their arguments concerning the division of powers.
He dismissed what he termed the administration’s “unchecked view of the President’s authority in foreign policy, which would place the Executive branch over Congress in a domain where both branches clearly share power… particularly when Congress is using one of its fundamental powers, and there isn’t any constitutional issue with the legislation it has enacted.”
This is the matter that was heard urgently by the Supreme Court last week.
When the decision is divided with five votes against four
In rejecting the attempt by Trump administration officials to overturn an initial ruling made by Judge Ali, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with Justices Amy Coney Barrett and the three judges appointed duringDemocratic administrations. This decision drew opposition from Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch.
The litigation will proceed in the trial court, where a combined report from both sides must be submitted to Ali by Friday regarding the defendants’ adherence to his directive and outlining subsequent actions. However, this matter could potentially revert back to the higher court; should that occur, we’ll observe the stance of the justices mentioned in the trial judge’s decision.
Subscribe to the
Deadline: Legal Newsletter
For insights into the leading legal stories of the week, featuring updates from the Supreme Court and progress on the Trump administration’s legal matters.
This piece was initially published on
SofTech
