How did Illston rule that the Trump administration definitively violated the Antideficiency Act by issuing RIF notices during the shutdown.

Question

Accepted Answer

False. Judge Illston found that unions demonstrated a "likelihood of success" on their Antideficiency Act claim—the legal standard for preliminary injunctions—but did not make a final ruling that the RIFs definitively violated the Act. Preliminary injunctions address whether plaintiffs will probably win at trial, not whether they have already proven their case. The Antideficiency Act prohibits agencies from obligating funds without appropriations; unions argued that processing RIFs requires funded HR staff and constitutes an obligation of funds. The Trump administration argued that issuing notices doesn't obligate funds because the separations wouldn't occur until after funding resumed. Judge Illston sided with the unions on the preliminary record but left the final legal question for trial.

How did Illston rule that the Trump administration definitively violated the Antideficiency Act by issuing RIF notices during the shutdown.

Explanation

Sources

Related Questions

PRINCIPLE

EXPLORE

RESOURCES