maggiedaunshow.bsky.social profile picture

Margaret (Maggie) Daun

@maggiedaunshow.bsky.social

504 Followers

36 Following

Host of The Maggie Daun Show on Civic Media. It’s better when we stand together. Resister. Ally. Lawyer. Economist. Public Speaker. Takes no bull and suffers no fools. Reader. Learner. Debater. Baseball fan. Cook. Camper. Francophone. Mom to doxie, Finny.

  2. maggiedaunshow.bsky.social profile picture

    Margaret (Maggie) Daun @maggiedaunshow.bsky.social

    Indeed. Words no longer have any meaning if the powers being construed are exercised by Donald Trump. What is going on in our courts?

    david.noll.org profile picture

    David Noll @david.noll.org

    I'm sorry but it beggars belief to think that, in enacting a statute to redress Nixon's illegal impoundment of appropriated funds, Congress secretly blocked recipients of statutory funding from funding from enforcing statutory obligations.

    The ICA does have a disclaimer that nothing in it “shall be construed” as “affecting in any way the claims or defenses of any party to litigation concerning any impoundment.” 2 U.S.C. § 681(3). But that does not mean that any aggrieved party may initiate litigation. See Pub. Citizen v. Stockman, 528 F. Supp. 824, 828 (D.D.C. 1981) (arguing that 2 U.S.C. § 681(3) is a “blatant disclaimer of any congressional design to provide for a private right of action” (citation modified)). Instead, the language disclaims any effect on the claims or defenses of anyparty that may bring litigation. 16 Section 681(3) also meant that a case then-pending before the Supreme Court at the time that the ICA became law was not moot. Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35, 41 n.8 (1975). But that simply confirms that the ICA had no retroactive effect. See Pet’r’s Suppl. Br. at 9– 11, Train, 420 U.S. 35 (No. 73-1377); see generally Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257, 266 (2012) (explaining that under the “principle against retroactive legislation,” courts “read laws as prospective in application unless Congress has unambiguously instructed retroactivity” (citation omitted)).
    0