To end a government shutdown, Congress needs to pass, and the President must sign, appropriations bills to fund the departments and agencies that have been shut down. The President does not have the power to end a shutdown unilaterally.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ending+federal+government+shutdowns+2025
No U.S. Senate rule requires government shutdowns. Shutdowns occur due to a legal interpretation of the Antideficiency Act of 1870, which was codified into federal practice through two 1980 and 1981 legal opinions from the U.S. Attorney General.
The legal basis for government shutdowns
The Antideficiency Act of 1870 The long-standing law makes it illegal for federal agencies to spend or obligate money in excess of what Congress has appropriated for them. While this law existed for decades, it was not initially interpreted to require agencies to cease operations during funding gaps.
1980 legal opinion A 1980 opinion by Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti reinterpreted the Antideficiency Act. This opinion stated that in the absence of an appropriation, agencies could only spend funds needed for the "orderly termination" of their activities. The first federal agency shutdown based on this interpretation occurred later that year at the Federal Trade Commission.
1981 legal opinion A subsequent opinion in 1981 further solidified the modern shutdown process. It established a narrow exception for continuing operations only when there is a direct connection to "the safety of human life or the protection of property".
Modern practice By the 1990s, the stricter interpretation of the Antideficiency Act was cemented as the standard practice for all government funding gaps. This established the framework for government shutdowns during budget impasses, such as the major shutdowns in 1995–1996, 2013, and 2018–2019.
It is not a U.S. Senate rule, but rather a legal interpretation of a budget law that requires government shutdowns. The practice stems from two 1980 and 1981 legal opinions by Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, which interpreted the 1870 Antideficiency Act as requiring agencies to cease all non-essential functions during a lapse in funding.
Key facts about the law and interpretation:
Antideficiency Act (1870): This law makes it illegal for government officials to spend or obligate money without an appropriation from Congress. For over a century, funding gaps did not typically lead to government shutdowns, as agencies continued to operate with the expectation that funding would be restored.
Civiletti Opinions (1980–1981): At the request of President Jimmy Carter, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued legal opinions that provided a stricter interpretation of the Antideficiency Act. He concluded that agencies could not continue normal operations during a funding gap and could only make expenditures related to "the safety of human life or the protection of property".
The
modern interpretation: Since these opinions, the federal government has
required a formal shutdown of non-essential services when Congress fails to
pass appropriations bills or a continuing resolution by the start of the fiscal
year on October 1.
The search results did not mention a specific Senate rule requiring government shutdowns.
No, the Supreme Court will not issue a ruling on the 2025 shutdown itself, as a government shutdown does not automatically go to the Supreme Court for a ruling. While the Supreme Court building is closed to the public, its official business will continue normally, and it will only rule on cases that come before it through the regular legal process. Some courts are already seeing constitutional concerns due to funding issues, such as the potential impact on defendants' right to counsel, but these are being handled by lower courts, not the Supreme Court directly.
What is happening
The Supreme Court is still operating, though the building is closed to the public. The judiciary will continue to operate under the Anti-Deficiency Act, which allows for "necessary" work during a funding lapse. However, some lower courts are already facing significant issues due to funding gaps.
Some federal cases, especially those involving the government as a party, may see delays as government lawyers seek to pause proceedings.
Criminal prosecutions and extraditions will likely continue, but the right to counsel for indigent defendants is a serious concern, as noted by a federal judge in a capital case.
What
this means for you
If
you have a private civil case, you should expect business as usual for now, but
be aware that delays are possible.
If
your case involves the federal government, you may see requests for delays from
government lawyers.
For criminal cases, while the government has stated it will not seek to delay prosecutions, funding gaps could impede a defendant's right to counsel.
https://www.google.com/search?q=will+the+supreme+court+issue+a+ruling+on+the+2025+shutdown
Approximately 1.4 million federal workers are going without a paycheck due to the 2025 government shutdown. Of those affected, about half are furloughed (not working), while the other half are deemed essential and are working without pay.
Furloughed workers: These workers are not working and not getting paid, but will receive back pay once the shutdown ends, as is traditional.
Essential
workers: These workers continue to work without pay. Examples include
air traffic controllers and TSA officers.
Total impact:
The total number of federal workers impacted is around 1.4 million, though the specific number of furloughed versus essential workers can fluctuate depending on agency staffing and priorities.
Specific groups: Some groups, like certain law enforcement officers in the Department of Homeland Security, have received paychecks due to extraordinary measures taken by the administration.
Paycheck timing: The timing of missed paychecks varies by agency. Some employees missed their first full paycheck on October 24, while others will miss it on October 28 or 30, depending on their pay cycle.
Comments
So, this piece of sabotage was created by a law passed in 1870. Continuing Resolutions. Omnibus Bills and Senate 60% Voting Rules should be thought through to find the landmines. Making expenditures related to "the safety of human life or the protection of property" should apply to the US Military and Law Enforcement like it did in 1980.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment