Defending the Presidency: ACLJ Challenges Judicial Overreach in D.C. Circuit

The reckless judicial overreach we’re seeing in courts across America is a direct assault on the Constitution. It isn’t just legal overreach; it’s lawfare – an attempt to weaponize the courts to undermine the presidency itself.

Today, the ACLJ filed an amicus brief in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals defending President Trump’s constitutional authority to govern and enforce the laws of our nation.

A federal district court judge issued a shocking preliminary injunction blocking the Trump Administration’s temporary funding pauses designed to ensure federal funds comply with congressional mandates like the Hyde Amendment (which prevents federal funding for abortion). The injunction came after far-Left organizations in National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget challenged a specific OMB memorandum, which was quickly rescinded after its distribution. It’s impossible to enjoin something that no longer exists, yet activists continue to use this moot case as a backdoor attempt to attack all funding pauses, including those implemented by separate Executive orders not even targeted in their original complaint.

As we argue in our brief, this is precisely the kind of judicial overreach the Founders warned against. When the OMB memo was rescinded, the case became moot under Article III of the Constitution. Courts cannot provide effectual relief against nonexistent documents, yet activist judges continue to expand these cases far beyond their original scope.

Take action with us and add your name to the petition: Defeat Rogue Judges – Defend the Constitution.

Defending the Hyde Amendment and Taxpayer Rights

This case has significant implications for protecting taxpayer dollars and enforcing the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the federal funding of abortion. The President’s January 24 Executive order, “Enforcing the Hyde Amendment,” aims to end the Biden Administration’s embedding of “forced taxpayer funding of elective abortions in a wide variety of Federal programs.”

The Biden Administration blatantly disregarded this congressional prohibition, forcing American taxpayers to fund elective abortions against their deeply held beliefs. President Trump’s Executive orders seek to restore compliance with this longstanding congressional mandate that enjoys broad bipartisan support and reflects the conscience rights of American taxpayers. When Congress says federal funds cannot be used for abortion, the Executive branch has both the authority and the duty to ensure that prohibition is enforced across all federal programs.

Constitutional Authority Under Attack

The Constitution establishes a unitary Executive branch under the President’s authority, with all Executive power vested in the President as head of the Executive branch. Alexander Hamilton understood this when he wrote in The Federalist Papers that the administration of public funds and oversight of their disbursement are Executive tasks carried out by officials who serve as “assistants or deputies of the chief magistrate.”

The OMB memorandum was never a “blanket freeze” as critics falsely claimed. It specifically directed agencies to pause only those activities that “may be implicated by the executive orders” and only “to the extent permissible under applicable law.” Programs not implicated by the orders were never subject to any pause. This is exactly the kind of careful, lawful oversight the Constitution requires.

What we’re witnessing is an unprecedented attempt to strip the President of his constitutional authority to faithfully execute the laws. Since 1789, Presidents have maintained direct oversight of federal operations without serious challenge – a practice that demonstrates the Founders’ intent for Executive control over federal administration. The President cannot fulfill his constitutional duties to faithfully execute the laws if activist judges can enjoin every attempt to ensure federal funds are spent in accordance with congressional mandates. When Congress passes the Hyde Amendment annually, it is not only the President’s right but his obligation to ensure these funds are used lawfully.

Standing Firm Against Lawfare

Our brief  presents two key arguments that should end this judicial overreach:

First, the lawsuit is moot because it challenges a now-rescinded OMB memo. The plaintiffs cannot use this lawsuit as a backdoor attempt to challenge all funding pauses implemented by separate Executive orders not targeted in their complaint.

Second, even before its rescission, the OMB memo simply directed agencies to analyze their programs and pause funding only where legally permissible and where implicated by specific Executive orders. That kind of direction is not the kind of specific final decision that anyone can challenge in court.

This case strikes at the heart of the separation of powers and Executive authority. If activist judges can prevent the President from ensuring that federal funds comply with congressional mandates, such as the Hyde Amendment, they will have effectively neutered the Executive branch. We’re asking the D.C. Circuit to reverse this judicial overreach and restore the proper constitutional balance of powers established by our Founders. The outcome will have lasting implications for presidential authority and the protection of taxpayers who shouldn’t be forced to fund abortions against their conscience.

Take action with us as we rein in the abuses of rogue judges. Add your name to the petition: Defeat Rogue Judges – Defend the Constitution.