{"id":107631,"date":"2025-02-04T10:14:30","date_gmt":"2025-02-04T18:14:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/02\/04\/white-house-press-sec-scores-another-own-goal-in-funding-fcktussle\/"},"modified":"2025-02-04T10:14:30","modified_gmt":"2025-02-04T18:14:30","slug":"white-house-press-sec-scores-another-own-goal-in-funding-fcktussle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/02\/04\/white-house-press-sec-scores-another-own-goal-in-funding-fcktussle\/","title":{"rendered":"White House Press Sec Scores Another Own Goal In Funding F*cktussle"},"content":{"rendered":"

Congratulations to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, whose tweets made it into yet another legal filing yesterday. <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. <\/p>\n

It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo.<\/p>\n

Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction.<\/p>\n

The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) January 29, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Last week, Rhode Island federal Judge John McConnell issued a TRO<\/a> on Trump\u2019s anti-woke spending cuts, citing Leavitt\u2019s post<\/a> as evidence that the White House intended to moot the pending litigation by rescinding the implementation memo from the Office of Management and Budget, while still freezing funds. That order applied only to funding for states, in response to a complaint filed by 20 blue state AGs along with the District of Columbia. (Apparently red states are only delighted to lose access<\/a> to Medicaid portals.)<\/p>\n

And last night, Judge Loren Alikhan in DC cited Leavitt again in an order<\/a> granting a TRO to nonprofits seeking to ensure access to government funds.<\/p>\n

\u201cWithin hours of OMB\u2019s rescission, White House Press Secretary Leavitt announced that the rescission was to have no tangible effect on \u2018the federal funding freeze,’\u201d the court wrote, noting that the press secretary\u2019s tweet \u201cunambiguously reflects that the rescission was in direct response to this court\u2019s issuance of an administrative stay on January 28.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

By rescinding the memorandum that announced the freeze, but \u201cNOT . . . the federal funding freeze\u201d itself, id., it appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without actually ceasing the challenged conduct. The court can think of few things more disingenuous. Preventing a defendant from evading judicial review under such false pretenses is precisely why the voluntary cessation doctrine exists. The rescission, if it can be called that, appears to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to prevent this court from granting relief.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The government pinky swore that the case became moot when the OMB memo was withdrawn, but Judge Alikhan noted that multiple of the plaintiffs were still running into delays and denials when seeking to access grant funds and reimbursements. But perhaps more<\/p>\n

\u201cDefendants\u2019 plea for a presumption of good faith rings hollow when their own actions contradict their representations,\u201d she scoffed.<\/p>\n

But perhaps more ominously for the government\u2019s claims, she seemed to reject the very premise of a presidential freeze on congressionally-allocated funds, observing that \u201cDefendants\u2019 actions appear to suffer from infirmities of a constitutional magnitude. The appropriation of the government\u2019s resources is reserved for Congress, not the Executive Branch.\u201d The court suggested that the Trump administration\u2019s effort to effectively edit federal spending by refusing to obligate funds if they don\u2019t accord with the president\u2019s priorities \u2014 or if they reward people he doesn\u2019t like \u2014 violates the Appropriations Clause as well as multiple federal statutes, including the Impoundment Act of 1974 and the Administrative Procedures Act.<\/p>\n

\n

Defendants\u2019 actions in this case potentially run roughshod over a \u201cbulwark of the Constitution\u201d by interfering with Congress\u2019s appropriation of federal funds. U.S. Dep\u2019t of the Navy, 665 F.3d at 1347. OMB ordered a nationwide freeze on pre-existing financial commitments without considering any of the specifics of the individual loans, grants, or funds. It did not indicate when that freeze would end (if it was to end at all). And it attempted to wrest the power of the purse away from the only branch of government entitled to wield it. If Defendants\u2019 actions violated the separation of powers, that would certainly be arbitrary and capricious under the APA.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It promises to be a knock-down-drag-out fight which is also very, very stupid. Luckily it\u2019s only the future of the republic at stake!<\/p>\n

National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget<\/a> [Docket via Court Listener]<\/p>\n

\n

Liz Dye<\/a>\u00a0lives in Baltimore where she produces the Law and Chaos\u00a0substack<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0podcast<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The post White House Press Sec Scores Another Own Goal In Funding F*cktussle<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Congratulations to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, whose tweets made it into yet another legal filing yesterday. <\/p>\n

Last week, Rhode Island federal Judge John McConnell issued a TRO<\/a> on Trump\u2019s anti-woke spending cuts, citing Leavitt\u2019s post<\/a> as evidence that the White House intended to moot the pending litigation by rescinding the implementation memo from the Office of Management and Budget, while still freezing funds. That order applied only to funding for states, in response to a complaint filed by 20 blue state AGs along with the District of Columbia. (Apparently red states are only delighted to lose access<\/a> to Medicaid portals.)<\/p>\n

And last night, Judge Loren Alikhan in DC cited Leavitt again in an order<\/a> granting a TRO to nonprofits seeking to ensure access to government funds.<\/p>\n

\u201cWithin hours of OMB\u2019s rescission, White House Press Secretary Leavitt announced that the rescission was to have no tangible effect on \u2018the federal funding freeze,’\u201d the court wrote, noting that the press secretary\u2019s tweet \u201cunambiguously reflects that the rescission was in direct response to this court\u2019s issuance of an administrative stay on January 28.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

By rescinding the memorandum that announced the freeze, but \u201cNOT . . . the federal funding freeze\u201d itself, id., it appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without actually ceasing the challenged conduct. The court can think of few things more disingenuous. Preventing a defendant from evading judicial review under such false pretenses is precisely why the voluntary cessation doctrine exists. The rescission, if it can be called that, appears to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to prevent this court from granting relief.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The government pinky swore that the case became moot when the OMB memo was withdrawn, but Judge Alikhan noted that multiple of the plaintiffs were still running into delays and denials when seeking to access grant funds and reimbursements. But perhaps more<\/p>\n

\u201cDefendants\u2019 plea for a presumption of good faith rings hollow when their own actions contradict their representations,\u201d she scoffed.<\/p>\n

But perhaps more ominously for the government\u2019s claims, she seemed to reject the very premise of a presidential freeze on congressionally-allocated funds, observing that \u201cDefendants\u2019 actions appear to suffer from infirmities of a constitutional magnitude. The appropriation of the government\u2019s resources is reserved for Congress, not the Executive Branch.\u201d The court suggested that the Trump administration\u2019s effort to effectively edit federal spending by refusing to obligate funds if they don\u2019t accord with the president\u2019s priorities \u2014 or if they reward people he doesn\u2019t like \u2014 violates the Appropriations Clause as well as multiple federal statutes, including the Impoundment Act of 1974 and the Administrative Procedures Act.<\/p>\n

\n

Defendants\u2019 actions in this case potentially run roughshod over a \u201cbulwark of the Constitution\u201d by interfering with Congress\u2019s appropriation of federal funds. U.S. Dep\u2019t of the Navy, 665 F.3d at 1347. OMB ordered a nationwide freeze on pre-existing financial commitments without considering any of the specifics of the individual loans, grants, or funds. It did not indicate when that freeze would end (if it was to end at all). And it attempted to wrest the power of the purse away from the only branch of government entitled to wield it. If Defendants\u2019 actions violated the separation of powers, that would certainly be arbitrary and capricious under the APA.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It promises to be a knock-down-drag-out fight which is also very, very stupid. Luckily it\u2019s only the future of the republic at stake!<\/p>\n

National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget<\/a> [Docket via Court Listener]<\/p>\n

\n

Liz Dye<\/a>\u00a0lives in Baltimore where she produces the Law and Chaos\u00a0substack<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0podcast<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Congratulations to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, whose tweets made it into yet another legal filing yesterday. This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":107632,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107631","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/GettyImages-2196425396-1-ssf3vW.jpeg?fit=594%2C403&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107631","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107631"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107631\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/107632"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107631"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107631"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107631"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}