Court rules in favor of Trump, permitting continuation of suspension of foreign aid funds
In a series of recent court rulings, it has been established that the Comptroller General of the legislative branch is the sole entity with standing to sue a presidential administration for violations of the Impoundment Control Act regarding budget changes.
The federal appellate court ruling in 2025, for instance, held that plaintiffs challenging the Trump administration's withholding of funds lacked standing, stating that "only the Comptroller General may bring suit as authorized" by the Impoundment Control Act [1]. This decision was echoed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that only the legislative branch can sue over presidential impoundment of congressionally approved budgets, with the Comptroller General serving as the enforcement mechanism under the Act [3].
The Impoundment Control Act outlines a complex scheme of interbranch dialogue and legislative branch official suit in case of executive branch violation. Under the Act, the Comptroller General reports on alleged illegal withholding of funds to Congress. This report serves as the special message required for enforcement and litigation [4].
Legal commentary and court opinions emphasize that courts have limited the ability of outside parties to bring freestanding constitutional or statutory claims challenging impoundment outside of the Comptroller General's enforcement role [5].
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and a Georgetown law professor, has criticized the court's reasoning as "nonsensical" because it cuts out the ability of parties to bring constitutional challenges to the President on budget changes. Vladeck also suggested that the full D.C. Circuit may want to rehear this ruling, and if it stands, Congress may only sue when it's adverse to the President [2].
Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, wrote a dissent, arguing that the court's decision degrades the balance of powers and the ability to check the President when he violates the law. On the other hand, Judge Henderson, a Reagan appointee, wrote the majority opinion, while Judge Katsas, a Trump appointee, sided with him [2].
In conclusion, under current law and judicial interpretation, the Comptroller General is the exclusive enforcer of the Impoundment Control Act’s procedural and substantive requirements and the only party with legal standing to sue the executive branch for violating it. This decision underscores the importance of the Comptroller General's role in maintaining the constitutional balance between the legislative and executive branches.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/15/politics/court-trump-budget-impoundment/index.html [2] https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/the-dc-circuit-rules-that-only-the-comptroller-general-can-sue-over-presidential-impoundment-of-congressionally-approved-budgets/ [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/15/us/politics/comptroller-general-trump-budget-impoundment.html [4] https://www.gao.gov/legal/impoundment-control-act [5] https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-impoundment-control-act-and-the-constitutional-balance-of-powers/
Regarding the Impoundment Control Act, it is clear that only the Comptroller General of the legislative branch has the authority to bring lawsuits against presidential administrations for violations related to budget changes, as established by court rulings. Furthermore, outside parties are generally unable to bring freestanding constitutional or statutory claims challenging impoundment outside of the Comptroller General's enforcement role, as emphasized by legal commentary and court opinions.
