Looking at the apportionment for ED's Higher Ed programs there are a bunch zero'd out: Child Care Access Means Parents In School, Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need, FIPSE. And $1.9 billion 'unallocated' openomb.org/file/11431544

But Trump's OMB has never addressed the 1975 OMB statement from that same year that they “did not plan the date of our rescission proposals so as to foreclose the usual requirement for release of funds and that we do not consider that this one case establishes a precedent.” bit.ly/4mZPQgG

The NYPost noted this AM that Trump’s OMB has pointed at past examples from Ford and Carter they claim are precedents for this power grab but looking more closely, those examples don’t cut it, you can read more here: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/past...

It is worth reading the law – in addition to the provision in §683(b) that requires OMB to spend the money unless Congress acts, you can see for yourself there is no provision that explicitly says OMB can withhold the money while Congress considers the proposal. bit.ly/3VqnGQa

Before Congress passed the ICA, plenty of courts heard these cases and provided relief to parties suing over impoundments, here are just a few. protectdemocracy.org/wp-content/u...

The ICA says "Nothing contained in this Act... shall be construed as... affecting in any way the claims or defenses of any party to litigation concerning any impoundment; or superseding any provision of law which requires the obligation of budget authority or the making of outlays thereunder." §1001

And the statement wraps explaining how a stay would “effectively cut the Congress’s purse strings” while denying the stay maintains the separation of powers balance laid out in our Constitution- granting Congress the power of the purse.

One of my favorite bits of the statement explains that apportionment is NOT an executive power — it is the executive exercising statutory authority granted by Congress though its power of the purse.

And makes clear that the disclosures the law requires include those pesky footnotes where funds are getting frozen.

Judge Henderson’s statement not only explains how mandating public disclosure of apportionments fits squarely within Congress’s power of the purse- but lays out why our Constitution grants that power to congress in the first place.

And that’s just CDC- other HHS programs, and funds at other agencies may also be frozen by footnotes that today’s decision could require OMB to finally make public once again— protectdemocracy.org/work/restori...

And while some CDC money may now be on its way out the door, other programs may still have their funding frozen in a footnote- www.npr.org/sections/sho...

Last week WSJ broke news that OMB was holding up CDC funds in an apportionment footnote- exactly the kind of info this website would force the agency to disclose www.wsj.com/politics/pol...