Margaret (Maggie) Daun @maggiedaunshow.bsky.social

12 days ago

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 @david.noll.org

13 days ago

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 any

party 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)).

Replies

No replies yet