U.S. Code » Title 2 » Chapter CHAPTER 17B— IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GENERAL PROVISIONS

2 U.S.C. § 681

Disclaimer

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 2 CasesGoogle Scholar
Nothing contained in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act, shall be construed as—(1) asserting or conceding the constitutional powers or limitations of either the Congress or the President;(2) ratifying or approving any impoundment heretofore or hereafter executed or approved by the President or any other Federal officer or employee, except insofar as pursuant to statutory authorization then in effect;(3) affecting in any way the claims or defenses of any party to litigation concerning any impoundment; or(4) superseding any provision of law which requires the obligation of budget authority or the making of outlays thereunder.(Pub. L. 93–344, title X, § 1001, July 12, 1974, 88 Stat. 332.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This Act, referred to in provision preceding par. (1), means Pub. L. 93–344, July 12, 1974, 88 Stat. 297, known as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which enacted chapters 17, 17A, and 17B, and section 190a–3 of this title and sections 11a, 11c, 11d, 1020a of former Title 31, amended sections 11, 665, 701, 1020, 1151, 1152, 1153, and 1154 of former Title 31, section 105 of Title 1, General Provisions, sections 190b and 190d of this title, repealed sections 571 and 581c–1 of former Title 31 and sections 66 and 81 of this title, and enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 190a–1, 621, 632, and 682 of this title, section 105 of Title 1, and section 1020 of former Title 31. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 621 of this title and Tables.

Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1400 of Title 31 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 31, Money and Finance, by Pub. L. 97–258, § 1, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 877.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Chapter effective July 12, 1974, see section 905(a) of Pub. L. 93–344, formerly set out as a note under section 621 of this title.

Short Title of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–130, § 1, Apr. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 1200, which provided that Pub. L. 104–130 (enacting former subchapter III (§ 691 et seq.) of this chapter and provisions set out as a note under section 691 of this title and amending provisions set out as notes under section 621 of this title) could be cited as the “Line Item Veto Act”, was omitted pursuant to section 5 of Pub. L. 104–130, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates note under section 691 of this title.

Short Title

For short title of title X of Pub. L. 93–344, which enacted this chapter, as the “Impoundment Control Act of 1974”, see section 1(a) of Pub. L. 93–344, as amended, set out as a note under section 621 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Donald Trump, 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Donald Trump, 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018). “2 U.S.C. §§ 681–688 (establishing congressional oversight when the Executive defers budget authority).”
State of New York v. Trump, 133 F.4th 51 (1st Cir. 2025). “With respect to the agency actions being "contrary to law," the Plaintiff-States pointed to the Impoundment Control Act ("ICA"), 2 U.S.C. § 681 et seq. They also pointed to various statutory schemes governing the disbursement of federal funds under specific programs, including…”
Solar Turbines, Inc. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 142 (Ct. Cl. 1991). “, 2 U.S.C. §§ 681 and 683 (1985). An internal Navy memorandum disputed the need for a formal rescission but recommended that “to ensure good faith compliance with the [Authorization Act],” a letter should be sent informing the Chairman of the Armed Service Committee that the…”
Byrd v. Raines, 956 F. Supp. 25 (D.D.C. 1997). “1200 (1996) (to be codified at 2 U.S.C. §§ 681 note, 691 et seq.) (“the Act”), which empowers the President unilaterally to “cancel” certain appropriations and tax benefits after signing them into law.”
City of New York v. Clinton, 985 F. Supp. 168 (D.D.C. 1998). “2 U.S.C. §§ 681 et seq. The ICA authorized the President to defer spending of Congressional appropriations during the course of a fiscal year or other period of availability, as long as Congress intended for those appropriations to be permissive rather than mandatory.”
Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. United States, 929 F. Supp. 484 (D.D.C. 1996). “1200 (1996) (to be codified at 2 U.S.C. §§ 681 note, 691, et seq.) The purpose of the Act is “to give the President line item veto authority with respect to appropriations, new direct spending, and limited tax benefits.”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump, 153 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2025). · cites it 4× “297, 332–39 (codified at 2 U.S.C. § 681 et seq.). To reserve appropriated funds within the Executive until expiry or request the Congress to rescind funds, known as permanent impoundment, the President must send a special message to both chambers of the Congress.”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump (AMENDED OPINION), No. 25-5097 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 28, 2025). · cites it 4× “297, 332–39 (codified at 2 U.S.C. § 681 et seq.). To reserve appropriated funds within the Executive until expiry or request the Congress to rescind funds, known as permanent impoundment, the President must send a special message to both chambers of the Congress.”
Dep't of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, No. 25A269 (U.S. Sept. 26, 2025). · cites it 2× “See 2 U. S. C. §681 et seq. After the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied stays of that order, the Government filed this application to stay the District Court’s injunction.”
Nat'l Council of Nonprofits v. Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, No. 2025-0239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). “25 Most notably, the Impoundment Act of 1974, 2 U.S.C. § 681 et seq., lays out specific procedures whenever the President wishes to suspend appropriations that have already been enacted.”
Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Russell Vought, 149 F.4th 762 (D.C. Cir. 2025). “at 6-7 (citing 2 U.S.C. § 681 et seq.). In Global Health Council, therefore—as in Dalton—a statute directly contemplated the presidential action under consideration.”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump, No. 2025-0402 (D.D.C. Sept. 3, 2025). “” 2 U.S.C. § 681 (3). In Train, a statute authorized appropriations “not to exceed” specified sums, and it provided that such sums “shall be allotted” by the EPA Administrator.”
2 U.S.C. § 681(3): 2 cases
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump, 153 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2025). “297, 332–39 (codified at 2 U.S.C. § 681 et seq.). To reserve appropriated funds within the Executive until expiry or request the Congress to rescind funds, known as permanent impoundment, the President must send a special message to both chambers of the Congress.”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump (AMENDED OPINION), No. 25-5097 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 28, 2025). “297, 332–39 (codified at 2 U.S.C. § 681 et seq.). To reserve appropriated funds within the Executive until expiry or request the Congress to rescind funds, known as permanent impoundment, the President must send a special message to both chambers of the Congress.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.