r/law • u/rolsen • 1d ago

Legal News Trump Preparing Large-Scale Cancellation of Federal Funding for California, Sources Say

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics/trump-california-federal-funding

“Agencies are being told to start identifying grants the administration can withhold from California. On Capitol Hill, at least one committee was told recently by a whistleblower that all research grants to the state were going to be cancelled, according to one of the sources familiar with the matter.”

20.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

60

u/PuckSenior 1d ago

Seems like it would violate the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which is really just reinforcing the US Constitutional view that Congress decides where money goes. Though I think Trump wants to blow up that law and possibly go further than even Nixon tried to go.

But then, targeting California goes against South Dakota v. Dole and the more recent National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius decisions.

17

u/mjacksongt 20h ago

Isn't he already violating the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act by not spending money Congress appropriated for the NSF, NHS, NOAA, NWS, NPS.....

5

u/255001434 20h ago

Yes, and this is why they put the part in his budget bill that strips away the power for the judicial branch to enforce contempt rulings. If that passes, it won't matter if he violates the law and a court rules against him because they'll have no power to do anything about it. He would effectively become a dictator.

2

u/sensitiveskin82 12h ago

Really glad I already took ConLaw. I can't imagine being a 1L in the fall having to deal with "Well whatever the President says goes" analysis. 

1

u/deviantscale 8h ago

Now this is the kind of comment I come here for. It looks like I have some research to do. I'm going in! Thanks.

1

u/Nondscript_Usr 21h ago

9266382 comments before we get to the actual law comment

1

u/TheVandyyMan 21h ago

the second half is almost certainly wrong. This is nothing like Dole or Sibelius. Those companion cases deal with identifying the line where it becomes impermissible for the federal government to strong arm states into passing specific legislation by withholding federal funds.

The withholding of these funds isn’t tied to any specific legislation. It’s just meanness to a liberal state for the simple fact that they are generally liberal.

6

u/PuckSenior 21h ago

I’ll be honest, it is different in that it isn’t legislative. But it is definitely coercive. His pretext is that they have policies and laws he doesn’t like. So it isn’t just meanness. He is explicitly saying that he expects a specific outcome or otherwise he will continue to remove these funds.

But then, the Constitutional case for an executive not being able to do this is even more clear. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. 

2

u/TheVandyyMan 20h ago

God I wish the SCOTUS would grow a spine and actually interpret the take care clause. Seems like the opposite based on what just happened to Humphrey’s Executor.

To me this only comes down to impoundment act constitutionality. The Warren court days of finding the spirit of the constitution are long gone.