A U.S. federal appeals court granted the Trump administration a victory on Wednesday, deciding that it is allowed to hold back billions of dollars in international assistance.
Judges from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit removed a lower court order that mandated the government to distribute foreign aid money that Congress had approved. The 2-1rulingstated that aid organizations that filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration regarding the foreign aid freeze did not have the legal right to pursue the case. "The district court made a mistake by granting that relief because the recipients do not have a valid legal basis to advance their claims," Judge Karen L. Henderson wrote in the majority opinion. Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, was supported in the decision by Judge Gregory G. Katsas, a nominee of President Trump.
Henderson stated that, according to the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, only the comptroller general — the leader of the Government Accountability Office, which is within the legislative branch — had the legal authority to contest the president's refusal to release funds.
The GAO has determined that the Trump administration violated the law by withholding money approved by Congress, although it has not yet taken legal action.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Florence Y. Pan, who was appointed by President Biden, stated that the government did not dispute the district court's determination that the president had no intention of using the allocated funds or the court's decision that withholding the money probably breached the Constitution. "Instead, the government only claims that the recipients do not have a legal basis to compel the President to commit the funds in question," Pan wrote. "Since this argument does not challenge the main legal reasoning that supported the preliminary injunction, our task is straightforward — we should uphold that decision."
Pan contended that the court decision "disrupts" the constitutional framework of checks and balances. "The court's conclusion that the recipients have no constitutional right to sue is both shocking and incorrect," she stated. "The majority claims that when the president chooses not to spend money approved by Congress due to policy differences, it is simply a statutory breach and does not trigger any constitutional concerns."
The administration's success could be short-lived, as the parties involved in the case reportedly plan to request a review from the entire 15-judge D.C. Circuit court panel.