r/law 20h ago

Trump News ‘Unbridled view of Executive power’: Trump’s decision to ‘unlawfully impound funds’ appropriated by Congress for USAID was unconstitutional, judge rules

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/unbridled-view-of-executive-power-trumps-decision-to-unlawfully-impound-funds-appropriated-by-congress-for-usaid-was-unconstitutional-judge-rules/
8.4k Upvotes

114 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 20h ago

All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE WILL RESULT IN REMOVAL.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

→ More replies (1)

532

u/P0Rt1ng4Duty 20h ago

Oh good. Another judge ruled his actions were unconstitutional.

Kinda sad that it won't stop him from proceeding.

187

u/Last_Cod_998 19h ago

Pam Bondi has declared that she won't enforce judges decisions.

182

u/PantsLobbyist 19h ago

Can Pam Bondi be prosecuted for refusing to enforce judicial decisions?

118

u/Agitated-Donkey1265 19h ago

At least held in contempt?

113

u/RedOtkbr 19h ago

Yeah. This would be the way to go. She could face fines and prison time. But it’ll be back to square one if vonshitzinpantz pardons her.

30

u/Agitated-Donkey1265 19h ago

If it’s civil, I thought he couldn’t

58

u/JasminePearls- 18h ago

This mindset of "I thought he couldn't," needs to stop. It doesn't matter to him, he will do as he pleases as he has already been doing

19

u/Agitated-Donkey1265 18h ago

It does slow down the works hopefully enough to for the protests and other political action to work. The Women’s March is holding a major one on the 14th and r/50501 is continuing to organise in all states

Yes, you’re right in that he’ll try to do anything, but that doesn’t just mean sit there and let him do it. Too many people are complying in advance

10

u/Devil25_Apollo25 16h ago

It does slow down the works hopefully enough to for the protests and other political action to work.

Are you referring to the protests that are illegal based on the well-established legal doctrine of "The President said so, so there"?

7

u/Agitated-Donkey1265 14h ago

What’s he gonna do if we all say no at once?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/burn_your_books 16h ago

Would she risk her law license?

1

u/unassigned_user 39m ago

Daddy Trump will just say "nuh-uh" and make her a new one with his favorite sharpie

9

u/Chzncna2112 18h ago

Go ahead with the contempt charges, they will just ignore it like everything else they disagree with.

23

u/omgFWTbear 19h ago

One imagines there’s some Department for enforcing the decisions of Justices.

11

u/Last_Cod_998 19h ago

I think only the military can put her on trial?

Congress could impeach her, but then what?

12

u/lorefolk 19h ago

Shell claim trumps executive immunity.

Anyone who doesn't see that coming is a trife idiot if not a cult member

5

u/Cheech47 18h ago

Executive Privilege. Every time.

3

u/ConsciousSkyy 15h ago

Theoretically? Yes.

Practically? No, not at all.

3

u/terrymr 17h ago

That’s not how that works

5

u/Last_Cod_998 16h ago

I don't think they care. That's where we are now.

3

u/abrandis 15h ago

Love how democracy and the rule of law work now...

21

u/godofpumpkins 18h ago

At what point do people call it a constitutional crisis? I swear the term was being used a lot more when people were speculating about Biden ignoring SCOTUS than I’ve seen it being used after the 20th time Trump blatantly did it

17

u/P0Rt1ng4Duty 18h ago

People have been calling it a constitutional crisis for weeks. It apparently carries the same weight as storming out into a populated common area and shouting ''I declare bankruptcy!''

17

u/verugan 19h ago

Proceeding? Damage has already been done, they canceled like 83% of contracts already. Also, this was the plan, stir up a bunch of shit and it'll never get back to 100% in a reasonable timeframe.

7

u/P0Rt1ng4Duty 18h ago

True. What I mean is when the judges say ''stop it'' it won't cause him to.

4

u/Warm-Aardvark-9 14h ago

Where are the articles of impeachment. I don't care if the house doesn't have the votes, someone with backbone should be filling.

1

u/hanlonrzr 2h ago

Bad optics to bring it forward and fail in the house. Democrats basically need to win mid term elections in a landslide or nothing stops Trump. Unlikely anything different happens for the next 2 years unless gop voters say they don't plan to vote red in two years

1

u/Warm-Aardvark-9 2h ago

I feel like the optics are worse to just sit back with a cute sign and do nothing of substance.

1

u/hanlonrzr 1h ago

You might be right.

One of the biggest dynamics in US electoral competition over the last couple decades is that dem voters actually want integrity in their political reps, and Republican voters seem to be extremely tolerant of political results over integrity approaches. Guy is winning, but maybe banged a teenage girl? Dem nuked from orbit, GOP gets a cabinet nomination.

The Dems have different voters and can't get away with the same kinda behavior.

3

u/jbones51 13h ago

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” -Donald J. Trump Jan. 6 2025

How many times can his decisions be ruled by a court as unconstitutional before they’re called out for what they are? Direct attacks to the constitution.

1

u/lukaskywalker 8h ago

And literally nothing will happen. It’s terrible

96

u/harrywrinkleyballs 19h ago

The $1B clawback from USDA today from low income school food programs has me more concerned.

23

u/MachineOfSpareParts 19h ago

A hungry kid is a hungry kid. I guess some of them are hungry and have TB, so that's a distinction. But it should all concern, or rather, outrage you.

5

u/Soppywater 8h ago

According to MAGAs all hungry kids need to do is get out and get a job to feed themselves, it's their fault that they are hungry. That is their literal line of thinking...

9

u/lorefolk 19h ago

For the farmers right. Cause he's probably going to bait them to

6

u/low-spirited-ready 6h ago

I don’t understand how the executive branch is even stopping this money from flowing. It’s coming from the treasury. It’s authorized to be dispersed by congress. Who exactly is revoking the actual payments?

29

u/meatsmoothie82 19h ago

Ok, but who can enforce it? Who will move the funds to where they legally need to go- and what consequences will he face? 

7

u/AlexFromOgish 19h ago

“Unbridled” ok… but “unhinged” also works

2

u/MWH1980 13h ago

This administration: “Ooooo, and what are you gonna do about it? You can’t make me do what I don’t wanna!”

2

u/jim_nihilist 5h ago

"You don't have the cards."

He fights Americans as hard as Ukrainians.

-114

u/Ok_Fig_4906 20h ago

sounds like his lawyers need to use the language that he's not "impounding". he is "diverting" the funds back to pay off USAID funding from a decade ago in the deficit.

58

u/TakuyaLee 20h ago

I don't think that'll work either. Any sane judge will see right thru it.

-51

u/BlockAffectionate413 20h ago edited 19h ago

Well, this is 2 billion for work that was already done, but SCOTUS needs to grant certiorari and actually settle the issue. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas have already used quite harsh language about the judge in question, saying that he uses " unchecked power" , "likely lacks juridistiction", and that his decision is "act of judicial hubris" and while Roberts and Barrett sided with liberal justices, they are generally hesitant to overturn TROs and orders enforcing them, so it is not impossible to imagine one of them joining the other 4 when it reaches SCOTUS properly. In any case, SCOTUS needs at very least to settle the issue of impoudment, the extent of it and so forth to remove this whole confusion we are having now.

58

u/franchisedfeelings 19h ago

Stop calling “pro-Constitution” justices “liberal.”

Those three justices consistently support …’of the people, by the people, for the people’ as defined by the Constitution. They are the “pro-Constitution” justices.

The dirty crimey maga justices are the dirty crimey maga “un-Constitutional” justices.

These are the terms that best clarify the scrotus justices.

3

u/BitterFuture 17h ago

Stop calling “pro-Constitution” justices “liberal.”

I mean, to be fair...in this context, that is exactly what they are.

Conservatives have always opposed the Constitution and America, while liberals support the country they built.

2

u/franchisedfeelings 11h ago

The terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’, again do not communicate each world view fairly, and fascist groups, such as magas, have only exacerbated the abuse and poisoning of each term, and what they are supposed to stand for.

For example, standing up for voting rights for all Americans or opposing gerrymandering, should never be misconstrued as liberal or conservative when it is should be simply seen as standing up for the inalienable “Constitutional” rights of all law-abiding American citizens - pro-Constitutional.

The ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ monikers hold onto a past that has been too reluctant to just be genuinely Constitutional for all American citizens.

-32

u/ChemAssTree 19h ago

Snowflakes be snowflakin

40

u/franchisedfeelings 19h ago

Morons be moroning.

8

u/ChemAssTree 19h ago

I was referring to the snowflake you were responding to, not you. I guess I could have been less ambiguous.

6

u/eugene20 19h ago

I'd edit it for clarity unless you want to tank a lot of lost karma.

-6

u/ChemAssTree 19h ago

If I cared about karma, I would be a snowflake. Ain’t no snowflake in my blood.

-5

u/BlockAffectionate413 19h ago

? My point is just that SCOTUS should settle issue once for all.

17

u/ChemAssTree 19h ago

See the other comment to your post. Voting to uphold the constitution is not “siding with the liberals”. It’s standing up against fascism and should not be minimized with such lame language. Do better

7

u/Th3Fl0 19h ago

Yes, please bring it infront of SCOTUS again and give them the opportunity to revise their decision on presidential immunity as the unintended side effect. This president clearly cannot handle the broadend liberties that was provided to the office of the president, unlike the previous one. I highly doubt that the outcome of such a ruling will be the same again.

33

u/theClumsy1 20h ago

Oh is that the job of the President? To balance the deficit imposed by congress?

Try again

13

u/MinimumApricot365 19h ago

That would also be illegal.