HEADLINE: Supreme Court Battles Over Presidential Impoundment Authority and the Separation of Powers GUEST NAME: Josh Blackman SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Josh Blackman about Supreme Court eras focusing on the separation of powers. Currently, the

The John Batchelor Show

John Batchelor

Books, Society & Culture, News, Arts

4.5 • 2.8K Ratings

🗓️ 9 October 2025

⏱️ 7 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

HEADLINE: Supreme Court Battles Over Presidential Impoundment Authority and the Separation of Powers GUEST NAME: Josh Blackman SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Josh Blackman about Supreme Court eras focusing on the separation of powers. Currently, the court is addressing presidential impoundment—the executive's authority to withhold appropriated funds. Earlier rulings, particularly 1975's Train v. City of New York, constrained this power. The Roberts Court appears sympathetic to reclaiming presidential authority lost during the Nixon era. The outcome of this ongoing litigation will determine the proper balance between executive and legislative branches.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	I'm John Baxter with Professor Josh Blackman of the Constitutionate Law at the South Texas College of Law, Houston,
0:12.9	helping me to understand the Supreme Court in terms of chief justices and eras and flavors.
0:18.4	Right now, we're looking at a case train versus New York City from 1975 that I would not have picked out of a hat as being critical.
0:29.9	But it is if President Trump is to go forward with his opinion that he can decide to spend or not spend, which very much reminds me
0:40.2	of the impoundment act of 1974.
0:44.0	What is the train case before the court right now?
0:48.6	And what are the arguments about the train case, Josh?
0:52.9	Sure.
0:53.5	So there's a term that people may not be familiar with
0:56.2	is called impoundment. Impoundment is when the president does not spend money that's appropriated by
1:02.0	Congress. And President Nixon argued very broadly in the 70s that he did not have to spend money
1:07.7	that he didn't want to spend. Congress can make it available.
1:12.5	It was a president's choice to spend it.
1:17.2	In response, Congress passes the Impoundment Control Act, which basically forces the president to spend the money.
1:18.9	And what's curious, if the president doesn't spend the money, he can be sued by a position
1:23.5	called the comptroller general, which is sort of this weird legislative officer who can
1:28.7	bring a lawsuit. I'm not clear this even works. One of the reasons why, generally, Congress can't
1:35.3	sue the president in court. If the president doesn't, Congress isn't like, the remedy is impeachment.
1:41.0	And we know this because Trump got impeached twice. And indeed, why was he impeached the first time for not spending money in Ukraine? And that was the basis of the impeachment that he was withholding money from Zelensky, which was like a lifetime ago. So I don't think this entire regime of suing the president for not spending money will work. The train case, you mentioned, does stand the way. but I'm not sure that train remains good law.
2:01.9	This actually might be a precedent.
2:03.1	The court reconsider at least perhaps narrow as going forward.
2:06.9	How would they do that?
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from John Batchelor, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of John Batchelor and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.