The ruling is the latest in long line of court decisions striking down executive efforts to attach conditions to federal grants that were not approved by Congress.
I was one of 35 legal scholars who took part.
The decision is based on precedents in similar cases during Trump's first term.
The decision involved administration attempts to withhold spending on foreign aid contracts, but has much broader implications.
This will, for the moment, avert what could have been a major legal battle over the spending power.
The White House's withholding of federal grants, impoundment plans, and other actions, are a major attack on the separation of powers.
The incoming administration's plans to use withhholding of federal funds to pressure sanctuary cities are reminiscent of ones that werre invalidated by courts during Trump's first administration.
Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, a leading expert on housing policy, offers some ideas on how Congress can use conditional spending to break down barriers to housing construction.
Fourth in a series of guest-blogging posts.
There are many parallels between this case and the one the Supreme Court decided in Biden v. Nebraska, invalidating Biden's previous large-scale loan forgiveness plan.
The Court ruled the plan is illegal, and that at least one plaintiff (the state of Missouri) has standing.
The CFPB funding scheme is constitutional, the 2nd Circuit says.
Lawmakers should proactively retake the power of the purse from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.
Legal scholar Michael Dorf claims Supreme Court should rule on this basis. But the doctrine doesn't apply to this case, and is dubious anyway.
Like the Sixth Circuit before it, the Eleventh ruled that the requirement that states receiving stimulus money refrain from cutting taxes was never clearly authorized by Congress.
Plus: The editors extend the discussion on the lack of immigration reform in this week’s bill.
This post covers significant developments in cases challenging Biden's loan-forgiveness plan other than the one Supreme Court has decided to hear.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded some state challenges to the COVID relief bill were not justiciable, but reaches the merits in one case and finds the law lacking.
The decision overrules a trial court ruling and likely paves the way for a decision on the merits striking down the program.
The likely answer is "yes." There are three types of potential litigants who probably qualify.
Relying on Section 432(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as some propose, has many of the same flaws as the Administration's emergency powers theory.
Under current Supreme Court precedent, the answer is probably "yes." But that precedent might not hold, thanks in part to Clarence Thomas.
Absent Roe, current Supreme Court precedent likely gives the federal government considerable power to either restrict or protect abortion rights. But that precedent could potentially be limited in ways advocated by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, an unlikely potential savior of abortion rights!
Some parts are both good policy and legally unproblematic. Others - particularly the mandate imposed on private employers - are legally dubious and would set a dangerous precedent if upheld by courts.
The mandate prevents bars states receiving federal funds under the Act from enacting tax cuts that are "directly or indirectly" offset by the grants.
In a careful ruling, Judge Cole concludes Ohio made its case, and enjoins enforcement of the mandate against Ohio.
For many elected Democrats, infrastructure is much more than roads, bridges, dams, and waterways.
A federal court issues a ruling against the requirement that states receiving stimulus funds are not allowed to raise taxes. Meanwhile, the Treasury Department issues an "interim final rule" intended to limit the scope of the mandate - and protect it against legal challenge.
In both situations, the grant conditions in question were not clearly and unambiguously authorized by Congress.
The divided 2-1 decision is the first court of appeals ruling to rule on the legality of a key part of the funding diversion effort.
The opinion was written by prominent conservative Judge David Sentelle.
For the moment, the executive "memorandum" is long on rhetoric, but short on actual action. If it ever does lead to action, it could be yet another attack on federalism and separation of powers.
A president who can attach his own new conditions to federal grants to states could use that power to undermine state autonomy on many issues - especially now that federal spending has been massively expanded during the coronavirus crisis.
In assessing impeachment, we should keep in mind Trump's usurpation of Congress' power over federal spending. This is a serious violation of the Constitution, and focusing on it overcomes some standard objections to impeachment.
Prof. Brian Frye of the University of Kentucky Law School interviewed me on this subject, as part of his series of "Ipse Dixit" podcasts.
If Trump used withholding of aid as leverage to pressure Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden, he both violated the Constitution and committed a federal crime. The evidence released so far strongly points in that direction, even if it is not completely definitive.
In this follow-up to my Washington Post article on the same subject, I consider whether current liberal support for federalism is purely opportunistic, and whether the political left is inherently pro-centralization.
The ruling comes after a long string of losses blocking other administration efforts to deny federal law enforcement funds to sanctuary jurisdictions. The different result in this case is largely a product of the unusual nature of the program involved.
My newly posted article explains how the administration's efforts have had the unintended effect of strengthening judicial protection for state autonomy.
In a case brought by the City of Philadelphia, the court struck down a Justice Department policy conditioning federal law enforcement grants on assisting federal immigration enforcement policy.
The ruling is notable in underscoring how the Supreme Court's sports-betting decision in Murphy v. NCAA helps sanctuary cities.
The ruling is the latest in long line of defeats for the administration's efforts to cut federal grants to sanctuary jurisdictions. It breaks new ground by showing how the recent Supreme Court ruling in Murphy v. NCAA helps sanctuary cities.
The US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirms a district court ruling against the administration's efforts to deny federal grants to sanctuary jurisdictions.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
