The Trump administration did not make the fact that it does not like the provision of money authorized by the congress pursuant to the law on reducing inflation and the law on bipartisan infrastructure. But Tuesday, a federal judge issued an order “by requesting agencies to rekindle the funding rays”.
Under President Donald Trump, federal agencies used his executive orders to justify the source of subsidies and contracts authorized with the congress, many of which had already been assigned. But the US district judge Mary McElroy, which Trump appointed during his first term, said that the actions of the administration were not “reasonable or reasonably explained”.
“The large powers that (Office of Management and Budget), the director (National Economic) and the five agencies say that they are not found anywhere in the federal law,” wrote McElroy.
In addition to Office of Management and Budget and the National Economic Council, five federal agencies were sued by as many complaints. The EPA, for example, was sued by the main infantile action project, which received $ 500,000 to fight childhood poisoning in the Rhode Island. The other agencies include agriculture, energy, housing and urban development and internal.
This case is separated from another, in which the Trump administration told Citibank to freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in funds already held in non -profit bank accounts. In this case, a federal judge said that the Trump administration – and in particular the EPA – acted in an arbitrary and capricious “way” during the closure of the contracts with three non -profit organizations. The judge issued a temporary restrictive order that required APA and Citibank to give non -profit organizations access to funds in their accounts.
McElroy has recognized that the Trump administration is in its rights to guide the country in a certain direction, although there are limits.
“The court wants to be crystal clear: the elections have consequences and the president has the right to implement his agenda. The judiciary does not and cannot decide if his policies are solid,” wrote the judge.
“But where the federal courts are constitutionally required to weigh – which means that, by law, we have no choice but to do it – we are cases” on the procedure “(or their lack) that the government follows in an attempt to issue these policies”.
Many non -profit companies and organizations objected through the judicial documents to the control of the Trump Administration on the departments and agencies of the executive branch to cancel the effects of the legislation that was approved by the Congress and signed in law under the previous administration.
Here, McElroy agrees with the complaints. “Agencies do not have an unlimited authority to promote the agenda of a president, nor have power without restrictions on the perpetual knee tendon two statutes approved by the congress during the previous administration.”
