The Mechanics of President Trump's Disaster Relief Memorandum - States can choose to obtain additional funding for providing unemployment benefits

Reason ^ | Aug 8, 2020 | Josh Blackman

[11th_VA]

... States are not obligated to request this funding. And if they decline to participate, they can keep all their current funding. I don't see an NFIB problem. Relatedly, if a state has the option to opt out, I do not know how they would have standing to challenge the memo. Perhaps a state could argue that this policy could decrease the funding available in the DRF for a disaster. But the policy expressly ensures that the DRF will not dip below $25 billion...

... Governors who apply will basically obtain a $400 weekly supplement for their citizens. Bring home the bacon! Perversely, Republican Governors are more likely to apply than Democratic Governors...

And this policy does not only apply to those who are on unemployment. It also applies to a "claimant [who] is unemployed or partially unemployed due to disruptions caused by COVID-19." "Partially employed," I think, means someone whose hours were reduced because of COVID. This category would also likely include those who are furloughed.

This policy will become very popular. There will be terrible optics to challenge it in court. For years, I have repeated the refrain, "I favor the policy, but it should be accomplished by legislation, not through executive action."

Democratic AGs will have a tough time explaining why they are ripping away $400 a week from unemployed residents.

... Legally speaking, the Court may be hesitant to enjoin a policy that will only last a few months. Politically, President Trump or a President Biden will be forced to continue renewing this policy indefinitely. Benefits are very hard to remove. Now Trump has entrenched a new benefit by executive action.

[11th_VA]

Relatedly, if a state has the option to opt out, I do not know how they would have standing to challenge the memo...

Hilarious ...

[reformedliberal]

Who said Trump doesn’t understand optics?

Was it Nanzi? Said he doesn’t know what he’s doing and lacks the authority?

Right after she lowered her demand by 33%?

[aimhigh]

Fascinating article.

[Svartalfiar]

This policy will become very popular. There will be terrible optics to challenge it in court. For years, I have repeated the refrain, "I favor the policy, but it should be accomplished by legislation, not through executive action."

Actually, this kind of policy needs to be accomplished through the Constitutional Amendment process, not just regular everyday legislation. Nothing in there gives FedGov the power to give away free helicopter money as it is.