The Statutory Authorization for President Trump's Disaster Relief Memorandum

42 U.S.C. 5174(e)(2): "The President, in consultation with the Governor of a State, may provide financial assistance" to "an individual or household in the State who is adversely affected by a major disaster" to address "other necessary expenses or serious needs resulting from the major disaster."

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Yesterday, I blogged about President Trump's Memorandum on Authorizing the Other Needs Assistance Program for Major Disaster Declarations Related to Coronavirus Disease 2019. I'll presume familiarity with the mechanics of the memorandum. This post will consider whether the President has the statutory authority to implement this memorandum.

There are three primary statutes referenced in the memorandum.

First, the starting point is 42 U.S.C. 5191(b). This statute authorizes the President to declare a national emergency:

The President may exercise any authority vested in him by section 5192 of this title or section 5193 of this title with respect to an emergency when he determines that an emergency exists for which the primary responsibility for response rests with the United States because the emergency involves a subject area for which, under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the United States exercises exclusive or preeminent responsibility and authority. In determining whether or not such an emergency exists, the President shall consult the Governor of any affected State, if practicable.

And President Trump issued such a declaration in March 2020. The memorandum recites:

On March 13, 2020, I declared a national emergency recognizing the threat posed by COVID-19.  I also determined that same day that the COVID-19 outbreak constituted an emergency, of nationwide scope, pursuant to section 501(b) of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5191(b)).

Second, 42 U.S.C. 5191(b). references 42 U.S.C. 5193. This provision limits the amount of federal assistance to at least 75% of the eligible costs.

The Federal share for assistance provided under this subchapter shall be equal to not less than 75 percent of the eligible costs.

Third, 42 U.S.C. 5174(e) authorizes the President, in consultation with a Governor, to provide financial assistance during a major disaster. It provides:

(e) Financial assistance to address other needs

(1) Medical, dental, child care, and funeral expenses

The President, in consultation with the Governor of a State, may provide financial assistance under this section to an individual or household in the State who is adversely affected by a major disaster to meet disaster-related medical, dental, child care, and funeral expenses.

(2)Personal property, transportation, and other expenses

The President, in consultation with the Governor of a State, may provide financial assistance under this section to an individual or household described in paragraph (1) to address personal property, transportation, and other necessary expenses or serious needs resulting from the major disaster.

The statute does not define what "other necessary expenses are." The statute also does not define what it means to have "serious needs resulting from the major disaster." The President interpreted those phrases to refer to "lost wages assistance" that result from the COVID disaster he declared. The memorandum recites:

To help meet the needs of the American people during this unprecedented and continuously evolving public health crisis, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), acting through the FEMA Administrator, is authorized to make available other needs assistance for lost wages, in accordance with section 408(e)(2) of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(e)(2)) ("lost wages assistance"), to the people of a State, including the members of any tribe residing therein, if the Governor requests lost wages assistance and agrees to administer delivery and provide adequate oversight of the program, for a major disaster I declared pursuant to section 401 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) for COVID-19, under the following conditions

This authorizations seems to fit within the confines of Section 5174 (e)(2). "The President, in consultation with the Governor of a State, may provide financial assistance" to "an individual or household in the State who is adversely affected by a major disaster" to address "other necessary expenses or serious needs resulting from the major disaster."

The source of statutory authority for this policy is orders of magnitude clearer than the statutory authority for DACA. President Obama's executive action relied on general provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. First, the government cited 6 U.S.C. § 202(5), which authorizes the secretary of homeland security to "[e]stablish[] national immigration enforcement policies and priorities." Second, the government invoked 8 U.S.C § 1103(a), which charges the secretary "with the administration and enforcement of this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens." Trump has relied on a specific statute that references making payments, in consultation with a Governor, for necessary expenses that result from a disaster.

What is the contrary argument? At Balkinzation, David Super makes a structural argument. Congress provided elsewhere for specific rules for Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA). 42 U.S.C. 5177(a) provides:

The President is authorized to provide to any individual unemployed as a result of a major disaster such benefit assistance as he deems appropriate while such individual is unemployed for the weeks of such unemployment with respect to which the individual is not entitled to any other unemployment compensation (as that term is defined in section 85(b) of title 26) or waiting period credit.

David writes:

[Section 5177], however, comes with two conditions that the President's program violates. First, FEMA may only provide DUA to those who are not eligible for any other form of unemployment compensation.  The President's program, by contrast, is limited to those who are receiving other unemployment benefits.  And second, the statute caps DUA benefits at the amount that state UC programs would allow.

Trump's memorandum expressly applies to people who are eligible for regular unemployment compensation. Indeed, the memorandum applies to people who are "partially unemployed due to disruptions caused by COVID-19." That could extend to people who are still employed, but have had their hours reduced due to furlough. Without question, the financial assistance in Trump's memorandum would apply to people who are not eligible for DUA.

David writes that Section 5174(e) cannot be read "in isolation." Instead, he contends, "Congress has provided clear instructions for how the Disaster Relief Fund may be used for unemployment benefits" in Section 5177(a). Therefore, he concludes, "the President's action effectively reads those conditions out" Section 5177(a).

David's argument is a familiar one. It is one I have made many times before. One statute should not be read to create a conflict with another statute. In the past, I argued that DACA allowed the President to disregard specific provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act concerning work authorization. (See the amicus brief I filed in Regents).

A similar argument could be made for Trump's memorandum:  Section 5174(e) should not be read to be in conflict with Section 5177(a). The statutes must be read in harmony with one another. To borrow from the Trump v. Hawaii dissent, Congress established a "finely reticulated" method for providing disaster unemployment assistance in Section 5177(a). Therefore, Section 5174(e) should not be read to authorize the President to sidestep those rules, and pay what is in effect unemployment compensation.

How can we harmonize these two statutes? President Trump's memorandum hints at the answer. The memorandum does not refer to the "financial assistance" as unemployment compensation. The memorandum refers to the "financial assistance" as "lost wages." He uses that phrase over and over again.

To provide financial assistance for the needs of those who have lost employment as a result of the pandemic, I am directing up to $44 billion from the DRF at the statutorily mandated 75 percent Federal cost share be made available for lost wages assistance to eligible claimants…

In short, Trump views "lost wage assistance" as something above, and beyond unemployment compensation. Critics (and perhaps litigants) will argue that Trump is manufacturing an artificial distinction as a means to ignore Section 5177(a). Trump is simply relabeling "unemployment compensation" as "lost wages" to get around the harmonious reading canon.

Will Trump's argument work? I think so. Trump v. Hawaii rejected the dissenter's argument that the travel ban bypasses Congress's "finely reticulated" system of regulating entry. I was sympathetic to that statutory argument. But the legal framework supporting this memorandum is far stronger for the President than the capacious travel ban statute. And the statutory authorization here is much, much clearer than the scattered INA provisions at issue in DACA. Trump relies on a specific statute that lets the President provide financial assistance to people affected by disasters. Presumably, those people could be individuals who are eligible for unemployment compensation. And there are specific criteria the Governor has to comply with. We are not dealing with boundless discretion. Under a fair reading of the statutes, the financial assistance in Section 5174(e) would be separate from disaster unemployment assistance in Section 5177(a).

Do I like this outcome? No. Congress has given the President far too much discretion. My reaction to this order resembles my initial reaction to Trump's wall policy: Congress needs to reassert its power of the purse. But based on my initial review, this memorandum stands on a plausible statutory footing. And, I am not sure who would have standing to challenge. The funding only kicks in after a Governor makes the request. No state is required to make the request. And any litigation that tries to enjoin this financial assistance will be political suicide.

Again, these thoughts are tentative. Please email me if I missed anything.

Update: Thanks to a commenter, and reader, for the correction. The federal contribution must be at least 75%, not a maximum of 75%.

Advertisement

NEXT: I Never Expected to Be Thanked in an SF Story

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Second, 42 U.S.C. 5191(b). references 42 U.S.C. 5193. This provision limits the amount of federal assistance to 75% of the eligible costs.

    “The Federal share for assistance provided under this subchapter shall be equal to not less than 75 percent of the eligible costs.”

    Looks to me like 75% is a floor, not a ceiling. What am I missing?

    1. Leo Marvin — The very question I intended to ask.

  2. The order specifically relies on the unemployment system and uses employment eligibility to determine who does and does not get the money, so the “lost wages” loop hole is not a loop hole at all. If it uses the unemployment insurance system to pay the money and uses the unemployment insurance system to determine eligibility, then it is unemployment insurance.

  3. Conservatives apparently have stopped flailing and have just surrendered.

    A president has signed a set of four expansive “bills” — his word, and entirely his creations — that seems to assert transfer of the taxation and spending powers from Congress to the White House.

    National Review? Not a word.

    RedState? Front-page praise for this “decisive action” (lauding the strategic assault on Democrats while acknowledging queasiness with respect to support for an action that is “unconstitutional”).

    Power Line? Applause for a “political masterstroke” (although briefly recognizing that ‘Questions surround the legality . . . “)

    Reason? Not a word — except for some right-wing legal blog posts that dutifully strive to identify legal justification for the president’s conduct.

    Instapundit? Regurgitation of Trump-flattering observations from Power Line and Volokh Conspiracy.

    These developments will enhance the entertainment value of Republicans’ strident whining when better Americans resume shoving progress and modernity down conservative throats; when Democrats enlarge the Supreme Court (by scrupulously following rules and honoring repeated precedent); when universal health care (formally named “Obamacare”, I hope) is enacted; and when the liberal-libertarian mainstream dismantles the authoritarian, bigoted, cruel immigration policies and practices arranged by Republicans and conservatives.

    If the American mainstream decides to start positioning that additional progress sideways before shoving, those doing the swallowing might try to find a moment to remember these Republican “bills” — and the broader conservative reaction — when attempting to understand.

    1. So, when your President does it, then its legal, and when our does, its not.
      Got it.
      Can’t believe you are allowed to espouse your hateful, tyrannical, fascist garbage on this forum. You should have been banned the first time you called your fellow citizens “clingers”.

      1. Whattaboutism aside, do you think what Trump did was legal or not?

        1. Whattaboutism aside, do you think what Obama did was legal or not?

          1. You even going to mention an specific act or just going to reveal your tiny two-dimensional worldview yet more?

      2. GREAT NAME

      3. ” Can’t believe you are allowed to espouse your hateful, tyrannical, fascist garbage on this forum. ”

        Take it up with management, which has censored non-conservative content more than once. Indicate you are tired of having the movement conservative content here adulterated with liberal-libertarian content.

    2. Because these are the rules the liberals have set down. You don’t like them? Support changing the rules. Otherwise, don’t complain that we gave up fighting against the rules and started following them.

      1. Remember that sentiment when the Supreme Court is enlarged in fastidious compliance with unambiguous rules and congruent with centuries of established practice.

        1. Do you really think Dems would do that? I can’t think of anything more likely to take the red/blue cold civil war into open conflict. I’m center-left independent but hope both parties stay clear of that dangerous approach to “winning” SCOTUS. Partisans barely accept losing elections and the other side getting to name Justices now. Dems still are incensed over what happened to Garland so imagine how GOP would respond to X new left-leaning members of the Court. Expanding the court to stuff it and ensure a majority for decades would not be accepted no matter how legal the process. SCOTUS’ authority might no longer be recognized outside of the states/party that expanded it. How could that ever be worth it? I bet we don’t see it happen in my lifetime.

      2. IOW, You have no argument. Just liberal-bashing.

        Which pretty much describes the state of conservatism is the US today.

    3. No Kirkland — the issue here is the Trillion (with a “T”) of money that the Blue States are demanding and the Red States are saying “Bleep, NO!” to.

      Maine’s fascist governor is a good example — she’s violated the Constitution and literally shut down the tourist industry, but claimed that everyone would be made whole via a Federal bailout. And now she can’t deliver on that.

      Sucks to be her — Paul LePage is running against her in 2022…

      That’s the issue of dispute here, and Trump has made an effective end run around it. And the Dems litigate it at their political peril.

      1. Well, that’s some revealing naked electoralism.

  4. Again, I think TFA might have the parsing wrong on eligibility — the structure is:

    Eligible = (i.) People in programs like (A) Program X (B) Program Y “and” (ii.) who certify that it’s due to rampant plague and whatnot.

    Conjunctive “and,” since the subject isn’t repeated in the second romanette.

    I’m also puzzled by the “not less” question mentioned above. Session law as amended governs, as it’s not an enacted Title, but there’s no definition section in the session laws that would clarify, viz:

    https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=102&page=4707#

    “Eligible costs” also seems to be used in the usual sense elsewhere in the Code:

    https://uscode.house.gov/print.xhtml?s=%22eligible%20costs%22&d=&sort=CODE_ORDER

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Mr. D.

  5. Congress needs to reassert its power of the purse.

    And how do you propose they do that when the Supreme Court – in particular the Republican Justices – are prepared to rubber-stamp Trump’s spending on whatever he wants.

  6. Apologies for double posting. I put the comment below on yesterday’s post rather than this one.

    I don’t understand how this even works. Section 3102 of the IRC requires, among other things, that “[t]he tax imposed by section 3101 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer, by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid.” The clearest problem is with employees who work for the employer now, but are no longer working for the employer when the extension of time ends. How exactly, or even approximately, does the employer “deduct” the amount of the tax from the wages paid, which have been, um already paid in full? I’m not even sure that it works linguistically for employees who have stayed with the same employer, though I suppose that’s a closer case.

  7. Interesting federal courts issue? So, I agree to work for Joe for a wage of $10000. I do the work, but he only pays me $9235, less non-FICA withholdings. I ask where’s the missing $765? He says “it’s FICA withholding. Yes I know I got an extension of time in which to deduct it. But, as this was a one-off project, and you’re unlikely ever to be my employee again. So the extension of time in which to take the deduction does me no good as it’s now or never to take the deduction.” I sue in state court for breach of contract asking for the additional money due on the contract. Employer defends by saying that the deduction was required by federal law. Does the case stay in state court? Kaucky v. Southwest Airlines Co., 109 F.3d 349 (1997) (Posner, C.J.), addresses a somewhat similar issue, but I’m not sure where I come out here.

    1. Very interesting.

      Personally, I’d argue that the liability for the employee’s share lies with the employee — much like self-employed employees — and that the collection would be the responsibility of the IRS, but IANALNDIWTBO.

      Could Trump be making a deal with American workers — “re-elect me and the debt is forgiven”? Would that actually be prohibited?

    2. I seem to be the king of commenting on the wrong post. Gah.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.