Good afternoon:
Here are a few federal funding updates:
- The federal government filed its appellant's brief in New York v. United States (the OMB "temporary pause" federal funding case). I am attaching it here. The statement of the issue is: "whether the district court erred in entering a preliminary injunction broadly prohibiting agencies from pausing federal funding "based on" the rescinded OMB Memorandum or the President's Executive Orders." I won't attempt to summarize all the arguments, but here are a few items to highlights:
- The federal government argues the states' claims are moot as the memo was rescinded, but that in any event, the memo was also a proper exercise of the executive's power.
- The federal government also argues that the district court's injunction related to other agency funding decisions - not just the OMB memo - was improper. In other words, the "plaintiffs' attempt to levy a programmatic attack on federal spending decisions across a wide assortment of agencies was improper."
- On this merits point, the federal government emphasizes that the executive orders and OMB memo only instructed agencies to cancel / terminate / pause funding consistent with applicable law, which the government argues, was plainly lawful.
- The government also argues that the scope of the injunction exceeded the district court's power because it swept in substantial lawful conduct.
- The government argues that the injunction cannot be predicated on the Impoundment Control Act as the act is not enforceable by the plaintiffs.
- And the government makes a Tucker Act argument that the district court lacked the power to order direct monetary payments and the States' claims "lie in the Tucker Act's heartland."
-
Governing for Impact (these were the folks we had on the call at one point to discuss the Impoundment Control Act and Tucker Act) has released a new "Administrative Procedure Act Library", which you can access here: https://governingforimpact.org/apa-library/. There are a number of topic covered.
-
Here is the CRS document mentioned on yesterday's call regarding Executive Orders: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46738?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22executive+orders+order%22%7D&s=1&r=1
Thanks,
Amanda
[logo]https://imla.org/
[facebook icon]https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/[twitter icon]https://twitter.com/imlalegal[linkedin icon]https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./
Amanda Karras (she/her)
Executive Director / General Counsel
International Municipal Lawyers Association
P: (202) 466-5424 x7116
D: (202) 742-1018
51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850
Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming eventshttps://imla.org/events/, calls and programming.
Good afternoon:
Here are a few federal funding updates:
1. The federal government filed its appellant's brief in New York v. United States (the OMB "temporary pause" federal funding case). I am attaching it here. The statement of the issue is: "whether the district court erred in entering a preliminary injunction broadly prohibiting agencies from pausing federal funding "based on" the rescinded OMB Memorandum or the President's Executive Orders." I won't attempt to summarize all the arguments, but here are a few items to highlights:
* The federal government argues the states' claims are moot as the memo was rescinded, but that in any event, the memo was also a proper exercise of the executive's power.
* The federal government also argues that the district court's injunction related to other agency funding decisions - not just the OMB memo - was improper. In other words, the "plaintiffs' attempt to levy a programmatic attack on federal spending decisions across a wide assortment of agencies was improper."
* On this merits point, the federal government emphasizes that the executive orders and OMB memo only instructed agencies to cancel / terminate / pause funding consistent with applicable law, which the government argues, was plainly lawful.
* The government also argues that the scope of the injunction exceeded the district court's power because it swept in substantial lawful conduct.
* The government argues that the injunction cannot be predicated on the Impoundment Control Act as the act is not enforceable by the plaintiffs.
* And the government makes a Tucker Act argument that the district court lacked the power to order direct monetary payments and the States' claims "lie in the Tucker Act's heartland."
1. Governing for Impact (these were the folks we had on the call at one point to discuss the Impoundment Control Act and Tucker Act) has released a new "Administrative Procedure Act Library", which you can access here: https://governingforimpact.org/apa-library/. There are a number of topic covered.
1. Here is the CRS document mentioned on yesterday's call regarding Executive Orders: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46738?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22executive+orders+order%22%7D&s=1&r=1
Thanks,
Amanda
[logo]<https://imla.org/>
[facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./>
Amanda Karras (she/her)
Executive Director / General Counsel
International Municipal Lawyers Association
P: (202) 466-5424 x7116
D: (202) 742-1018
51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850
Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming.