SAN FRANCISCO (KEYT) – California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced he is leading a coalition of attorneys general in filing a legal challenge to the Trump Administration's stated intent to impound Congressionally-approved funding, a fundamental alteration to the spending process detailed in the U.S Constitution and in federal law.
"The Trump Administration's attempts to unlawfully block the obligation of funding Congress appropriated by statute—known as impoundment—are preventing Plaintiff States from accessing funding opportunities that Congress required the Administration to provide," opened the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Wednesday. "[T]he Constitution prohibits impoundment, no matter how it is undertaken. Impoundment violates the separation of powers by contravening several constitutional provisions, including the Spending Clause, the Take Care Clause, and the Presentment Clause. And the impoundment of funding that Congress has previously declined to rescind independently violates the Appropriations Clause."
According to Article II Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the President of the United States, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
Every year, the President of the United States is legally required to begin the federal budget process by submitting their budget request to the nation's legislature by the first Monday of February.
While the request is a starting point, Congress is not required to pass the recommendations and instead can use them as a guide as they prepare a bill or bills that appropriate or spend federal funds by a certain date or over a specified timeframe.
Like any other bill passed by both chambers of Congress, the President can sign the bill into law or veto the bill and send it back to Congress or do nothing and after ten days, the bill becomes a law.
The Fiscal Year 2026 budget process resulted in the passage of three separate appropriations bills after an extended government shutdown and and three continuing resolutions, but ultimately all were signed into law by President Trump.
Despite those legally binding appropriations laws, this week's lawsuit noted that, "On the evening of September 25, 2026, the Administration announced it was 'utilizing a pocket rescission' to unilaterally cut $810 million in 'wasteful and harmful government spending that does not benefit American citizens.'"
"President Trump sent the Special Message to Congress that same day but that message did not request Congress rescind its prior appropriation as plainly contemplated by statute," noted the attorneys general in their civil suit. "This reapportionment purports to effectuate the unlawful pocket rescission, meaning it incorporates the same explicit policy justifications supporting the rescission, outlined in the President's public announcement and the Special Message."
Under the authority of the Impoundment Act of 1974, the President of the United States can request that Congress rescind or alter already-approved federal funds. The country's legislative branch has 45 days to approve or reject the request.
If Congress does not approve of the changes requested by a President before the 45 day window expires, the President must comply with federal law and spend the allocated funds.
Notably, President Trump's request came at a crucial time of the year.
The last day of the federal fiscal year is Sep. 30 and funds that must be spent by that time under federal law expire at the end of the day.
"Impoundments are particularly pernicious where, as here, they involve an attempt by the Executive Branch to halt the obligation of certain funds until they expire at the end of the last day of the federal fiscal year: September 30," highlighted this week's federal lawsuit. "The intended effect is that those unspent funds are made permanently unavailable to their intended recipients. Given Congress's clear intent that the Executive Branch spend those funds and Congress's exclusive and overriding authority on matters of federal spending, that outcome is blatantly unconstitutional."
"[T]he Administration is trying to run out the clock and to force the rescission of funds, on the theory that it can transform Congress's appropriations into mere suggestion," explained the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Wednesday. "By refusing to spend those federal funds as appropriated, the Administration violates the separation of powers, the Appropriations Clause, underlying appropriations statutes, and various other statutory provisions."
Any time that a President makes a request to change approved expenditures with Congress, the Comptroller General within the Government Accountability Office is required to review the request and evaluate if it complies with federal law.
In this case, the independent oversight agency determined on Sep. 29 of this year that,"Based on GAO's [Government Accountability Office] preliminary review, all 11 accounts implicated by the special message have an assigned Treasury appropriation fund symbol indicating expiration at the end of fiscal year 2026. The period for congressional consideration will end no earlier than November 9, 2026, after the end of fiscal year 2026."
"As a result, the rescission proposals contained in the President's September 25, 2026, special message to Congress do not permit the President to withhold the appropriations beyond the end of fiscal year 2026," concluded the independent watchdog. "Any withholding of appropriated funds beyond their date of expiration, regardless of size, subverts both the constitutional process for enacting federal law and Congress's constitutional power of the purse. The President may not force the expiration of budget authority Congress has already enacted and did not rescind."
This week's lawsuit explained that the Trump Administration's gambit requires a fundamental change to the current request process arguing:
"The Administration suggests that this 45-day period, during which Congress may review the request, triggers an automatic deferral of the funds, which the Administration then argues it can use to delay the obligation of funds past their statutory expiration date. The result is an unlawful impoundment and the effective repeal of portions of appropriations statutes. This transforms a process meant to allow Congress to review and act on the President's requests into a mechanism for circumventing Congress's review and intent. In so doing, it deprives Congress of its exclusive control over federal spending."
"The Administration is seeking to eliminate funds to better reflect the President's preferred funding levels as reflected in his budget request, despite Congress previous rejection of the cuts the President had requested," added the civil suit. "Refugee and Entrant Assistance, Education for the Disadvantaged, and Higher Education are all appropriations that the President requested be reduced or eliminated in FY26 [Fiscal Year 2026 budget]. For each, Congress declined to adopt the proposed change. The Administration requested these same accounts, plus Healthcare Research and Quality, be cut or eliminated for FY27 [Fiscal Year 2027 budget]. Congress again refused to adopt the proposed change."
The coalition of attorneys general from California, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon concluded their lawsuit by requesting that federal courts declare the unilateral changes to the nation's budget be declared inherently unconstitutional and unlawful, permanently block the Trump Administration from making the changes, and force federal agencies to comply with federal law by spending the Congressionally-approved funds.
"I continue to be appalled by President Trump's blatant disregard for the basic Constitutional framework of our government. Just because the President doesn't like a program doesn't mean he can defund it. Congress -the part of our government closest to the people- has the power of the purse. That structure exists for a reason: It protects the people from the authoritarian policy choices of a single person," argued Attorney General Bonta. "We're going to court -once again- to protect against the rampant abuses of power by this Administration."
Attorney General Files Lawsuit Challenging Fundamental Changes to Federal Spending Implemented by the Trump Administration News Channel 3-12.
Hence then, the article about attorney general files lawsuit challenging fundamental changes to federal spending implemented by the trump administration was published today ( ) and is available on News channel ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Attorney General Files Lawsuit Challenging Fundamental Changes to Federal Spending Implemented by the Trump Administration )
Also on site :