Court filing: 284 DOE grants canceled, all but one were in states Trump lost. Fair or political?

R66 wrote:

I know, I named 3 that you align with. 

matt.3150 wrote:

To put in “I bet your bad is proud of you” is pretty pathetic.  Even the trolling is incompetent.  Socialism and Communism is now people who...

To put in “I bet your bad is proud of you” is pretty pathetic.  Even the trolling is incompetent.  Socialism and Communism is now people who think everyone should have healthcare that doesn’t cost a future or wanting a good education that doesn’t put them in debt or actually caring about the welfare of others.  We do seem to have Socialism for billionaires and corporations though but just not for everyone. 

R66 wrote:

He started it when he called me “little  fella.”  Was that a pathetic response from him? He took a dig at me so I gave him...

He started it when he called me “little  fella.”  Was that a pathetic response from him? He took a dig at me so I gave him one back. Have a great day!

Kenny Banyan wrote:

I think a tool in the tool box, for a president to be able to get his policy's through can be a good thing. 

APLMAN99 wrote:

Are you referring to the original situation in this thread?  That the President should have that tool to use for that reason?  

The real Sasquatch wrote:

The Tenth amendment makes it unconstitutional to force states into enforcing federal law.  So wouldn't it be unconstitutional to hold funding back because of it? That...

The Tenth amendment makes it unconstitutional to force states into enforcing federal law.  So wouldn't it be unconstitutional to hold funding back because of it? That would be forcing states to enforce federal laws ,wouldn't it?  

 

 That is how states are able to legalize pot for recreational use.  Same concept. It's still illegal federally, but the federal government cannot force the states to enforce those penalties.  

 

 Being open about it being for political reasons gives them a win with their supporters  even if its changed and the grants are funded. They can say how they punished those evil Dem states.  And there are Trump supporters who will think that it's great. There are trump supporters who support him because he's owning the libs.    Should be more of a wakeup call to established politicians  in both parties, than it has been. Writing it off as a cult or whatever. So many people wouldn't have been so receptive to being a Trump supporter if they were not so fed up with  how things have been going. People knowing that the elected officials are going to lie , enrich themselves,etc.  can look at Trump say that that at least he's saying what we would like to say to those other politicians, even if he's doing all of the same other stuff we hated.  

 

TheGetFresh wrote:

No. You're thinking of commandeering. Withholding federal moneys from a state is a valid exercise of the federal government's spending power under South Dakota v. Dole...

No. You're thinking of commandeering. Withholding federal moneys from a state is a valid exercise of the federal government's spending power under South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). In 1987, Congress passed a bill to withhold 10% of federal money to states if those states did not enforce a 21 year old drinking age. Went to Scotus. Feds won. 

 

 

 

matt.3150 wrote:

The President generally cannot unilaterally impose new conditions or use unrelated federal funds to pressure states into adopting policies Congress did not require.Congress has the power...

The President generally cannot unilaterally impose new conditions or use unrelated federal funds to pressure states into adopting policies Congress did not require.

Congress has the power of the purse not the President/ The executive just facilitates what Congress has given it and has to comply with the laws and constitution 

Congress also can’t impose conditions to bills/funds that are unlawful and unconstitutional 

APLMAN99 wrote:

Are you referring to the original situation in this thread?  That the President should have that tool to use for that reason?  

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Yes

APLMAN99 wrote:

You understand that the reason was because the states didn't vote for him in the prior election, correct?  You think that is a valid reason to...

You understand that the reason was because the states didn't vote for him in the prior election, correct?  You think that is a valid reason to withhold funds from states?

Kenny Banyan wrote:

I think a tool in the tool box, for a president to be able to get his policy's through can be a good thing. 

APLMAN99 wrote:

Are you referring to the original situation in this thread?  That the President should have that tool to use for that reason?  

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Yes

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Yes

APLMAN99 wrote:

You understand that the reason was because the states didn't vote for him in the prior election, correct?  You think that is a valid reason to...

You understand that the reason was because the states didn't vote for him in the prior election, correct?  You think that is a valid reason to withhold funds from states?

Kenny Banyan wrote:

How do you know this is the case? 

TheGetFresh wrote:

No. You're thinking of commandeering. Withholding federal moneys from a state is a valid exercise of the federal government's spending power under South Dakota v. Dole...

No. You're thinking of commandeering. Withholding federal moneys from a state is a valid exercise of the federal government's spending power under South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). In 1987, Congress passed a bill to withhold 10% of federal money to states if those states did not enforce a 21 year old drinking age. Went to Scotus. Feds won. 

 

 

 

matt.3150 wrote:

The President generally cannot unilaterally impose new conditions or use unrelated federal funds to pressure states into adopting policies Congress did not require.Congress has the power...

The President generally cannot unilaterally impose new conditions or use unrelated federal funds to pressure states into adopting policies Congress did not require.

Congress has the power of the purse not the President/ The executive just facilitates what Congress has given it and has to comply with the laws and constitution 

Congress also can’t impose conditions to bills/funds that are unlawful and unconstitutional 

TheGetFresh wrote:

So Sasquatch said: The Tenth amendment makes it unconstitutional to force states into enforcing federal law.  So wouldn't it be unconstitutional to hold funding back because...

So Sasquatch said: The Tenth amendment makes it unconstitutional to force states into enforcing federal law.  So wouldn't it be unconstitutional to hold funding back because of it? That would be forcing states to enforce federal laws ,wouldn't it?

And I was pointing out that the concept he’s thinking about commandeering, which isn’t really connected to spending and isn’t really relevant for this discussion. It was not a response to the topic of the thread, just Sasquatch’s question. 

For this case, this is about money given to the administrative branch to dole out to the states as grants. There is likely little constitutional law in question for the specific issue of cancelling grants only to blue states. The fact that a large number of grants were cancelled for blue states and not red states doesn’t mean that those cancelled grants could automatically be rolled into one big case about the constitution. 

Instead, each of these cases (if they’re even taken to court) will need to be prosecuted individually and will probably hinge on the arbitrary and capricious standard. That standard asks if an administrative agency’s action was reasonable. It comes down to a pretty squishy concept in administrative law. 

So the point is, just cause Trump cancelled a bunch of grants doesn’t mean we need to start screaming about the constitution. Wrong rabbit hole. 

It’s also important to note that all cancelled grants were from the Department of Energy. You can probably guess that Biden era DOE grants were for green projects, and blue states are naturally going to be looking for federal money for renewable projects at a much higher rate than red states. 

The demand for renewables has been flipped on its head since Biden was president because the tech industry has put all of its eggs in the data basket and the country is being inundated with data centers. This has created a huge spike in energy consumption that requires infrastructure in traditional electricity delivery because it can be scaled quicker than renewable energy. 

So even if the grants were cancelled based on political affiliation, the Trump admin has a pretty strong position to argue that the decision was reasonable because the market has changed since those grants were written and any individual project in a blue state was drafted in contemplation of a demand for electricity that has been totally outpaced. 
 

And this doesn’t even get into the history of these types of administrative decisions, but this is running long so I’ll save that for another time. Ultimately, this isn’t much more than an outrageous headline about business as usual. 

 

APLMAN99 wrote:

You understand that the reason was because the states didn't vote for him in the prior election, correct?  You think that is a valid reason to...

You understand that the reason was because the states didn't vote for him in the prior election, correct?  You think that is a valid reason to withhold funds from states?

Kenny Banyan wrote:

How do you know this is the case? 

SKlein wrote:

https://ucresearchergrantterminations.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ECF-No.-211-Declaration-of-KYLE-A.-MCLORG-in-support.pdf

Page 511, Bullet #9. Otherwise just search the doc for that quote in question.

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Oh brother!🤣

soggy wrote:

Oh the horror!  We hope you recover from the trauma. Loser. 

APLMAN99 wrote:

Are you referring to the original situation in this thread?  That the President should have that tool to use for that reason?  

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Yes

APLMAN99 wrote:

Are you still of the mind that the president, ANY president, should have the legal authority to withhold funding like this?  

soggy wrote:

Oh the horror!  We hope you recover from the trauma. Loser. 

R66 wrote:

matt.3150 wrote:

Imagine protecting a pedophile and thinking your right about anything.

matt.3150 wrote:

The President generally cannot unilaterally impose new conditions or use unrelated federal funds to pressure states into adopting policies Congress did not require.Congress has the power...

The President generally cannot unilaterally impose new conditions or use unrelated federal funds to pressure states into adopting policies Congress did not require.

Congress has the power of the purse not the President/ The executive just facilitates what Congress has given it and has to comply with the laws and constitution 

Congress also can’t impose conditions to bills/funds that are unlawful and unconstitutional 

TheGetFresh wrote:

So Sasquatch said: The Tenth amendment makes it unconstitutional to force states into enforcing federal law.  So wouldn't it be unconstitutional to hold funding back because...

So Sasquatch said: The Tenth amendment makes it unconstitutional to force states into enforcing federal law.  So wouldn't it be unconstitutional to hold funding back because of it? That would be forcing states to enforce federal laws ,wouldn't it?

And I was pointing out that the concept he’s thinking about commandeering, which isn’t really connected to spending and isn’t really relevant for this discussion. It was not a response to the topic of the thread, just Sasquatch’s question. 

For this case, this is about money given to the administrative branch to dole out to the states as grants. There is likely little constitutional law in question for the specific issue of cancelling grants only to blue states. The fact that a large number of grants were cancelled for blue states and not red states doesn’t mean that those cancelled grants could automatically be rolled into one big case about the constitution. 

Instead, each of these cases (if they’re even taken to court) will need to be prosecuted individually and will probably hinge on the arbitrary and capricious standard. That standard asks if an administrative agency’s action was reasonable. It comes down to a pretty squishy concept in administrative law. 

So the point is, just cause Trump cancelled a bunch of grants doesn’t mean we need to start screaming about the constitution. Wrong rabbit hole. 

It’s also important to note that all cancelled grants were from the Department of Energy. You can probably guess that Biden era DOE grants were for green projects, and blue states are naturally going to be looking for federal money for renewable projects at a much higher rate than red states. 

The demand for renewables has been flipped on its head since Biden was president because the tech industry has put all of its eggs in the data basket and the country is being inundated with data centers. This has created a huge spike in energy consumption that requires infrastructure in traditional electricity delivery because it can be scaled quicker than renewable energy. 

So even if the grants were cancelled based on political affiliation, the Trump admin has a pretty strong position to argue that the decision was reasonable because the market has changed since those grants were written and any individual project in a blue state was drafted in contemplation of a demand for electricity that has been totally outpaced. 
 

And this doesn’t even get into the history of these types of administrative decisions, but this is running long so I’ll save that for another time. Ultimately, this isn’t much more than an outrageous headline about business as usual. 

 

matt.3150 wrote:

Well when you said the the Doe grants from Biden probably went to blue state more than red state, is false. Also state use green energy. On...

Well when you said the the Doe grants from Biden probably went to blue state more than red state, is false. Also state use green energy. 

On the infrastructure bill by Biden which actually helped Red states more than blue states.

Texas is the largest user of wind power. South Dakota 82% of the entire energy comes from green energy. Grants still have rules to get those grants political ideology isn’t one of them. 

the executive branch often has significant control over distributing federal grants, but it cannot legally use that power to punish states for refusing to do things the federal government has no authority to require.

 

APLMAN99 wrote:

Are you referring to the original situation in this thread?  That the President should have that tool to use for that reason?  

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Yes

APLMAN99 wrote:

Are you still of the mind that the president, ANY president, should have the legal authority to withhold funding like this?  

TheGetFresh wrote:

So Sasquatch said: The Tenth amendment makes it unconstitutional to force states into enforcing federal law.  So wouldn't it be unconstitutional to hold funding back because...

So Sasquatch said: The Tenth amendment makes it unconstitutional to force states into enforcing federal law.  So wouldn't it be unconstitutional to hold funding back because of it? That would be forcing states to enforce federal laws ,wouldn't it?

And I was pointing out that the concept he’s thinking about commandeering, which isn’t really connected to spending and isn’t really relevant for this discussion. It was not a response to the topic of the thread, just Sasquatch’s question. 

For this case, this is about money given to the administrative branch to dole out to the states as grants. There is likely little constitutional law in question for the specific issue of cancelling grants only to blue states. The fact that a large number of grants were cancelled for blue states and not red states doesn’t mean that those cancelled grants could automatically be rolled into one big case about the constitution. 

Instead, each of these cases (if they’re even taken to court) will need to be prosecuted individually and will probably hinge on the arbitrary and capricious standard. That standard asks if an administrative agency’s action was reasonable. It comes down to a pretty squishy concept in administrative law. 

So the point is, just cause Trump cancelled a bunch of grants doesn’t mean we need to start screaming about the constitution. Wrong rabbit hole. 

It’s also important to note that all cancelled grants were from the Department of Energy. You can probably guess that Biden era DOE grants were for green projects, and blue states are naturally going to be looking for federal money for renewable projects at a much higher rate than red states. 

The demand for renewables has been flipped on its head since Biden was president because the tech industry has put all of its eggs in the data basket and the country is being inundated with data centers. This has created a huge spike in energy consumption that requires infrastructure in traditional electricity delivery because it can be scaled quicker than renewable energy. 

So even if the grants were cancelled based on political affiliation, the Trump admin has a pretty strong position to argue that the decision was reasonable because the market has changed since those grants were written and any individual project in a blue state was drafted in contemplation of a demand for electricity that has been totally outpaced. 
 

And this doesn’t even get into the history of these types of administrative decisions, but this is running long so I’ll save that for another time. Ultimately, this isn’t much more than an outrageous headline about business as usual. 

 

matt.3150 wrote:

Well when you said the the Doe grants from Biden probably went to blue state more than red state, is false. Also state use green energy. On...

Well when you said the the Doe grants from Biden probably went to blue state more than red state, is false. Also state use green energy. 

On the infrastructure bill by Biden which actually helped Red states more than blue states.

Texas is the largest user of wind power. South Dakota 82% of the entire energy comes from green energy. Grants still have rules to get those grants political ideology isn’t one of them. 

the executive branch often has significant control over distributing federal grants, but it cannot legally use that power to punish states for refusing to do things the federal government has no authority to require.

 

TheGetFresh wrote:

But do you have any argument other than “government can’t do that”? What’s the basis? Why can’t it? Like I said, this is a question of administrative...

But do you have any argument other than “government can’t do that”? What’s the basis? Why can’t it? 

Like I said, this is a question of administrative law and it’s more of a technical issue than can be addressed by a broad statement about what government should and shouldn’t do to the states. Not to mention, the states themselves aren’t recipients of these grants. How would they even have standing to bring a case?

I’ll steel man your argument here. Under federal administrative case law, a court will set aside an agency decision if it finds the decision is arbitrary and capricious. A decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is not founded in any rational decision making or is based on a whim of the agency. 

Here, the DOE’s decision to cancel the grants is arbitrary and capricious because it’s based on political retribution, not founded in a reasonable decision making process. Therefore, the court should reinstate the grants. 

That’s how you would challenge the denial of the grants, not based on some sweeping platitude loosely tied to ideas about the constitution. 

But the arbitrary and capricious standard is difficult to overcome. And even in cases where an agency is clearly motivated by whims, it will likely win if it can point to a rational decision making process that leads to the same conclusion. So here, the DOE can make the argument that its goals have changed and projects greenlit under the Biden administration are no longer feasible based on current energy policy.

Will the DOE win? Probably. Is there good reason for them not to? There’s a strong argument there. But just because the headline is scary doesn’t mean you should put this in your fascism folder and pull it out at dinner parties to show your friends how TrUmP iS dEsTrOyInG mUh CoNsTiTuTiOn. This type of shit has gone on for decades by every president in both of our lifetimes, but you’re just now freaking out about it because that’s the political environment we live in. 

matt.3150 wrote:

Imagine protecting a pedophile and thinking your right about anything.

R66 wrote:

matt.3150 wrote:

Well when you said the the Doe grants from Biden probably went to blue state more than red state, is false. Also state use green energy. On...

Well when you said the the Doe grants from Biden probably went to blue state more than red state, is false. Also state use green energy. 

On the infrastructure bill by Biden which actually helped Red states more than blue states.

Texas is the largest user of wind power. South Dakota 82% of the entire energy comes from green energy. Grants still have rules to get those grants political ideology isn’t one of them. 

the executive branch often has significant control over distributing federal grants, but it cannot legally use that power to punish states for refusing to do things the federal government has no authority to require.

 

TheGetFresh wrote:

But do you have any argument other than “government can’t do that”? What’s the basis? Why can’t it? Like I said, this is a question of administrative...

But do you have any argument other than “government can’t do that”? What’s the basis? Why can’t it? 

Like I said, this is a question of administrative law and it’s more of a technical issue than can be addressed by a broad statement about what government should and shouldn’t do to the states. Not to mention, the states themselves aren’t recipients of these grants. How would they even have standing to bring a case?

I’ll steel man your argument here. Under federal administrative case law, a court will set aside an agency decision if it finds the decision is arbitrary and capricious. A decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is not founded in any rational decision making or is based on a whim of the agency. 

Here, the DOE’s decision to cancel the grants is arbitrary and capricious because it’s based on political retribution, not founded in a reasonable decision making process. Therefore, the court should reinstate the grants. 

That’s how you would challenge the denial of the grants, not based on some sweeping platitude loosely tied to ideas about the constitution. 

But the arbitrary and capricious standard is difficult to overcome. And even in cases where an agency is clearly motivated by whims, it will likely win if it can point to a rational decision making process that leads to the same conclusion. So here, the DOE can make the argument that its goals have changed and projects greenlit under the Biden administration are no longer feasible based on current energy policy.

Will the DOE win? Probably. Is there good reason for them not to? There’s a strong argument there. But just because the headline is scary doesn’t mean you should put this in your fascism folder and pull it out at dinner parties to show your friends how TrUmP iS dEsTrOyInG mUh CoNsTiTuTiOn. This type of shit has gone on for decades by every president in both of our lifetimes, but you’re just now freaking out about it because that’s the political environment we live in. 

matt.3150 wrote:

The legal principle is this:The federal government may attach lawful conditions to federal money when Congress authorizes those conditions and they are related to the purpose...

The legal principle is this:

The federal government may attach lawful conditions to federal money when Congress authorizes those conditions and they are related to the purpose of the funding.

Here’s the legal and constitutional issues

1. The Spending Clause

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

This gives Congress—not the President—the power to spend money for the general welfare and to attach conditions to federal grants.

2. The Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is one of the constitutional bases for the rule that the federal government cannot simply order states to carry out federal policies.

3. The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

The Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot require states or state officials to administer or enforce federal law.

• New York v. United States
  • Congress cannot compel states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.
• Printz v. United States
  • The federal government cannot require state law enforcement officers to implement federal laws.
• Murphy v. NCAA
  • Reaffirmed that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures or executives.

4. Limits on Conditions Attached to Federal Money

The leading case is:

• South Dakota v. Dole

The Court said Congress may attach conditions to federal grants, but generally:

• The spending must promote the general welfare.
• The conditions must be stated clearly.
• The conditions must be related to the purpose of the funding.
• The conditions cannot require states to violate another constitutional provision.

5. The Federal Government Cannot Be Coercive

The most important modern case is:

• National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

 

 

matt.3150 wrote:

Imagine protecting a pedophile and thinking your right about anything.

R66 wrote:

matt.3150 wrote:

Must really just suck to have the same words you used  then used against you! Clearly by your reply! But I would respect anything less. Do you wear the...

Must really just suck to have the same words you used  then used against you! 

Clearly by your reply! 

But I would respect anything less. 

Do you wear the same bronzer and your dear leader. 

R66 wrote:

matt.3150 wrote:

Must really just suck to have the same words you used  then used against you! Clearly by your reply! But I would respect anything less. Do you wear the...

Must really just suck to have the same words you used  then used against you! 

Clearly by your reply! 

But I would respect anything less. 

Do you wear the same bronzer and your dear leader. 

R66 wrote:

matt.3150 wrote:

Must really just suck to have the same words you used  then used against you! Clearly by your reply! But I would respect anything less. Do you wear the...

Must really just suck to have the same words you used  then used against you! 

Clearly by your reply! 

But I would respect anything less. 

Do you wear the same bronzer and your dear leader. 

R66 wrote:

matt.3150 wrote:

You just keep posting the same old tired posts and pictures. Can’t you actually have a new thought.  It’s amazing how much time you spend...

You just keep posting the same old tired posts and pictures. Can’t you actually have a new thought.  It’s amazing how much time you spend thinking about gay people and trans people. 
It’s really telling , says more about you mainly.

Blame other for your own issues is the MAGA way.

matt.3150 wrote:

Well when you said the the Doe grants from Biden probably went to blue state more than red state, is false. Also state use green energy. On...

Well when you said the the Doe grants from Biden probably went to blue state more than red state, is false. Also state use green energy. 

On the infrastructure bill by Biden which actually helped Red states more than blue states.

Texas is the largest user of wind power. South Dakota 82% of the entire energy comes from green energy. Grants still have rules to get those grants political ideology isn’t one of them. 

the executive branch often has significant control over distributing federal grants, but it cannot legally use that power to punish states for refusing to do things the federal government has no authority to require.

 

TheGetFresh wrote:

But do you have any argument other than “government can’t do that”? What’s the basis? Why can’t it? Like I said, this is a question of administrative...

But do you have any argument other than “government can’t do that”? What’s the basis? Why can’t it? 

Like I said, this is a question of administrative law and it’s more of a technical issue than can be addressed by a broad statement about what government should and shouldn’t do to the states. Not to mention, the states themselves aren’t recipients of these grants. How would they even have standing to bring a case?

I’ll steel man your argument here. Under federal administrative case law, a court will set aside an agency decision if it finds the decision is arbitrary and capricious. A decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is not founded in any rational decision making or is based on a whim of the agency. 

Here, the DOE’s decision to cancel the grants is arbitrary and capricious because it’s based on political retribution, not founded in a reasonable decision making process. Therefore, the court should reinstate the grants. 

That’s how you would challenge the denial of the grants, not based on some sweeping platitude loosely tied to ideas about the constitution. 

But the arbitrary and capricious standard is difficult to overcome. And even in cases where an agency is clearly motivated by whims, it will likely win if it can point to a rational decision making process that leads to the same conclusion. So here, the DOE can make the argument that its goals have changed and projects greenlit under the Biden administration are no longer feasible based on current energy policy.

Will the DOE win? Probably. Is there good reason for them not to? There’s a strong argument there. But just because the headline is scary doesn’t mean you should put this in your fascism folder and pull it out at dinner parties to show your friends how TrUmP iS dEsTrOyInG mUh CoNsTiTuTiOn. This type of shit has gone on for decades by every president in both of our lifetimes, but you’re just now freaking out about it because that’s the political environment we live in. 

matt.3150 wrote:

The legal principle is this:The federal government may attach lawful conditions to federal money when Congress authorizes those conditions and they are related to the purpose...

The legal principle is this:

The federal government may attach lawful conditions to federal money when Congress authorizes those conditions and they are related to the purpose of the funding.

Here’s the legal and constitutional issues

1. The Spending Clause

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

This gives Congress—not the President—the power to spend money for the general welfare and to attach conditions to federal grants.

2. The Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is one of the constitutional bases for the rule that the federal government cannot simply order states to carry out federal policies.

3. The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

The Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot require states or state officials to administer or enforce federal law.

• New York v. United States
  • Congress cannot compel states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.
• Printz v. United States
  • The federal government cannot require state law enforcement officers to implement federal laws.
• Murphy v. NCAA
  • Reaffirmed that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures or executives.

4. Limits on Conditions Attached to Federal Money

The leading case is:

• South Dakota v. Dole

The Court said Congress may attach conditions to federal grants, but generally:

• The spending must promote the general welfare.
• The conditions must be stated clearly.
• The conditions must be related to the purpose of the funding.
• The conditions cannot require states to violate another constitutional provision.

5. The Federal Government Cannot Be Coercive

The most important modern case is:

• National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

 

 

TheGetFresh wrote:

But do you have any argument other than “government can’t do that”? What’s the basis? Why can’t it? Like I said, this is a question of administrative...

But do you have any argument other than “government can’t do that”? What’s the basis? Why can’t it? 

Like I said, this is a question of administrative law and it’s more of a technical issue than can be addressed by a broad statement about what government should and shouldn’t do to the states. Not to mention, the states themselves aren’t recipients of these grants. How would they even have standing to bring a case?

I’ll steel man your argument here. Under federal administrative case law, a court will set aside an agency decision if it finds the decision is arbitrary and capricious. A decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is not founded in any rational decision making or is based on a whim of the agency. 

Here, the DOE’s decision to cancel the grants is arbitrary and capricious because it’s based on political retribution, not founded in a reasonable decision making process. Therefore, the court should reinstate the grants. 

That’s how you would challenge the denial of the grants, not based on some sweeping platitude loosely tied to ideas about the constitution. 

But the arbitrary and capricious standard is difficult to overcome. And even in cases where an agency is clearly motivated by whims, it will likely win if it can point to a rational decision making process that leads to the same conclusion. So here, the DOE can make the argument that its goals have changed and projects greenlit under the Biden administration are no longer feasible based on current energy policy.

Will the DOE win? Probably. Is there good reason for them not to? There’s a strong argument there. But just because the headline is scary doesn’t mean you should put this in your fascism folder and pull it out at dinner parties to show your friends how TrUmP iS dEsTrOyInG mUh CoNsTiTuTiOn. This type of shit has gone on for decades by every president in both of our lifetimes, but you’re just now freaking out about it because that’s the political environment we live in. 

matt.3150 wrote:

The legal principle is this:The federal government may attach lawful conditions to federal money when Congress authorizes those conditions and they are related to the purpose...

The legal principle is this:

The federal government may attach lawful conditions to federal money when Congress authorizes those conditions and they are related to the purpose of the funding.

Here’s the legal and constitutional issues

1. The Spending Clause

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

This gives Congress—not the President—the power to spend money for the general welfare and to attach conditions to federal grants.

2. The Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is one of the constitutional bases for the rule that the federal government cannot simply order states to carry out federal policies.

3. The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

The Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot require states or state officials to administer or enforce federal law.

• New York v. United States
  • Congress cannot compel states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.
• Printz v. United States
  • The federal government cannot require state law enforcement officers to implement federal laws.
• Murphy v. NCAA
  • Reaffirmed that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures or executives.

4. Limits on Conditions Attached to Federal Money

The leading case is:

• South Dakota v. Dole

The Court said Congress may attach conditions to federal grants, but generally:

• The spending must promote the general welfare.
• The conditions must be stated clearly.
• The conditions must be related to the purpose of the funding.
• The conditions cannot require states to violate another constitutional provision.

5. The Federal Government Cannot Be Coercive

The most important modern case is:

• National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

 

 

disbanded wrote:

Fucking AI drivel is meaningless.  You can't even spell, but you can post paragraphs of AI bullet symbol bullshit that you probably can't even read.  When...

Fucking AI drivel is meaningless.  You can't even spell, but you can post paragraphs of AI bullet symbol bullshit that you probably can't even read.  When is the last time you posted in the Moto section?  Do you ride a motorcycle?