Barrage of lawsuits targets Trump’s funding cancellation..Lawmakers are looking to the courts to help protect Congress’ funding power.

Po-litico (Yeah, I know) ^ | Jennifer Scholtes, Cassandra Dumay and Kyle Cheney 10/01/2026, 11:51am ET

[Red Badger]

Lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s move to cancel $810 million in congressionally approved spending are piling up in courtrooms throughout the country as states and groups that receive federal dollars fight to keep the cash flowing.

In the final hours before the fiscal year ended late Wednesday, a half-dozen states went to federal court to challenge Trump’s latest use of a controversial “pocket rescission.” A group that helps students from migrant families go to college also filed suit, trying to preserve about $25 million in education funding Trump is seeking to claw back.

At least one federal judge so far has been sympathetic to arguments that Trump’s move, which essentially runs out the clock on Congress’ right to evaluate and potentially reject funding clawbacks, could be illegal: U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled late Wednesday to delay the expiration of $56 million for housing support services, temporarily blocking Trump from canceling the money.

The flurry of legal action comes as many lawmakers on Capitol Hill clamor for the courts to strike down Trump’s action as an illegal and unconstitutional encroachment on Congress’ power to dictate how federal cash is spent.

But the fresh lawsuits will not necessarily prompt a sweeping ruling from the Supreme Court, which allowed Trump to go ahead last year with withholding $4 billion he canceled through the same budget tactic. The high court argued in that brief unsigned order that the Trump administration had made a strong argument that outside groups may not have legal standing to sue under the decades-old impoundment law.

In the lawsuit Wednesday by six states, the suing parties argue that the president has not only flouted that 1970s law, but also the Constitution and the annual funding bills Congress has enacted over the last year.

The group suing over the cancellation of funding for educating students from migrant families laid out similar arguments, contending that the Trump administration has violated the First Amendment by discriminating based on “protected speech, expressive activities, and viewpoints that are irrelevant to funding or activities” the programs support.

Cobb’s decision, meanwhile, is only temporary. She explained in an emergency order Wednesday that she acted because the suing groups “would lose out on significant amounts of funding due to allegedly unconstitutional actions.”

Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.

---

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: judgeblockstrump

[Red Badger]

[ridesthemiles]

WHO ARE THESE “JUDGES” WE NEVER VOTED FOR????

[Red Badger]

Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves.............

[packrat35]

So they are suing to force Americans to spend even more money on illegal foreign invaders

[Ronaldus Magnus III]

Bull-BLEEP-ico will NEVER get over President Trump canceling the huuuuuge amount of $$$$ Bull-BLEEP-ico received from the democRATs via USAID.

[Rockingham]

Politico offers little explanation of the underlying constitutional issue as to whether Congress's power to spend mandates specific spending or instead simply authorizes it. If the latter, then the President has the constitutional power to withhold spending appropriated money.

In the 1970s, Democrats battling Nixon insisted that spending was mandated, not simply authorized. Historically though, from the founding era onward, presidents were considered to have the inherent power not to spend appropriated money.

My guess is that a split Supreme Court will adopt the traditional view.

[TexasFreeper2009]

Democrats have refused to use funds appropriated for border security every time they hold the presidency.

And were taken to court over it and the courts ruled over and over that the president cant be forced to act.

So what is good for the goose is good for the gander. They cant force Trump to act on something they funded either.

[Rockingham]

As defined by Ambrose Bierce, Lawful: Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction.

[kiryandil]

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, DEI “Droolin’ Joe” Biden stooge.

Probably just like Jumanji Brown Jacksome, doesn’t know the difference between a man and a wimmings.

[kiryandil]

Every night all the men would come around, and lay their money down, for town bicycle Jia.

[DugwayDuke]

so if the supremes have already found this constitutional, why these lawsuits.