In 2024, Congress appropriated specific funds for foreign assistance, requiring the executive branch to spend them fully. Lawyer Daniel Jacobson argued these appropriations are mandatory, as there is no discretionary language. The government, represented by Sean Janda, indicated the funding freeze is temporary while determining fund reallocations. Janda noted that the executive branch can defer funds under the Impoundment Control Act with proper congressional communication. Judges expressed contrasting views on the funding freeze's legality and long-term implications, with emphasis on external political pressures influencing funding strategies.
According to Daniel Jacobson, Congress appropriated very specific pots of money for foreign assistance purposes in 2024 and mandated the executive branch to use the full amount.
Lawyer Sean Janda stated that the funding freeze is temporary while the government decides how to reprogram some of the funds allocated by Congress.
Janda emphasized that the executive branch can defer allocated funds under the Impoundment Control Act if it sends a special message to Congress.
Judge Florence Pan questioned the temporary nature of the funding freeze, referencing comments by former President Trump on potential funding cutbacks.
Collection
[
|
...
]