Background
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 explicitly prohibits presidents from withholding congressionally appropriated funds for ideological reasons. This law was enacted in response to President Nixon's attempts to impound funds and has been consistently upheld by courts. In the landmark case Train v. City of New York (1975), the Supreme Court ruled against presidential impoundment powers, reinforcing Congress's constitutional "power of the purse."
Resolution Criteria
This market will resolve YES if:
SCOTUS upholds Trump's authority to impound funds such that the Trump administration is legally able to withhold at least $1 billion of Congressionally-appropriated funds
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ15 | |
| 2 | Ṁ9 | |
| 3 | Ṁ7 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1 |
People are also trading
(1wk ago)
Good article on 2 topics that get far too little attention between all the antics: Impoundment, and nationwide injunctions for federal justices
https://www.vox.com/scotus/401838/supreme-court-usaid-impoundment-trump-aids-vaccine
Tl;dr Trump lawyers aren't arguing (yet) that impoundment is legal, they're arguing mainly that federal justices shouldn't be able to make nationwide injunctions. This is much more likely to succeed, and would significantly reduce the guardrails on the Trump admin
It really bothers me that so little of the conversation on the frozen funding is "this is just very illegal"
Related.(1 month old): Roberts & Kavanaugh both have argued against impoundment being legal previously
https://www.vox.com/scotus/397820/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-trump-spending-freeze-impoundment
Recent impoundment was denied but only for a technical error and still 5-4
https://www.vox.com/scotus/402648/supreme-court-usaid-trump-aids-vaccine