Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case:
In Re: Aiken Cnty., 725 F.3d 255 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
In Re: Aiken Cnty., 725 F.3d 255 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “See 2 U.S.C. § 683 ; see also Train v. City of New York, 420 U.”
Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Trump, 250 F. Supp. 3d 497 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
“To effectuáte this purpose, the Order directs that “the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.”
Elinor R. Bacon v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 757 F.2d 265 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The Act provides that if the Executive branch determines that all or part of a budget authority is not required, or desires it to be rescinded or deferred for reasons of fiscal policy, the President must submit a special message to Congress proposing rescission or deferral of…”
Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Trump, 275 F. Supp. 3d 1196 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
“But that is what Section 9(h) purports to do, to give the Attorney General and the Secretary the power to place a new condition on federal funds (compliánce with Section 1373) not authorized by Congress.”
Byrd v. Raines, 956 F. Supp. 25 (D.D.C. 1997).
“2 U.S.C. § 683 (b). The perceived deficiency of the rescission process under the ICA that inspired passage of the Line Item Veto Act was the necessity of congressional acquiescence.”
City of New Haven, Connecticut v. United States, 634 F. Supp. 1449 (D.D.C. 1986).
“2 U.S.C. § 683 . To propose a rescission the President must send a special message to Congress detailing the amount of the proposed rescission, the reasons for it, and a summary of the effects the rescission would have on the programs involved.”
City of New Haven v. United States, 809 F.2d 900 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
“See 2 U.S.C. § 683 (1982). For temporary impoundments (or “deferrals”), Congress adopted the House approach, which allowed impoundments to become effective without prior approval if neither House of Congress passed a resolution disapproving the impoundment.”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump, No. 2025-0402 (D.D.C. Sept. 3, 2025).
· cites it 4× “135 at 13; see 2 U.S.C. § 683 (a) (providing that the President shall transmit a special message with certain information to both houses of Congress whenever he “determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be 15 required to carry out the full objectives or scope…”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump, 153 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
· cites it 3× “2 U.S.C. § 683(a). The message must address the (1) amount at issue; (2) department and project or functions involved; (3) reasons 7 for rescission or reservation; (4) fiscal, economic and budgetary effects; and (5) relevant facts, circumstances and considerations as well as…”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump (AMENDED OPINION), No. 25-5097 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 28, 2025).
· cites it 3× “2 U.S.C. § 683(a). The message must address the (1) amount at issue; (2) department and project or functions involved; (3) reasons for rescission or reservation; (4) fiscal, economic and 7 budgetary effects; and (5) relevant facts, circumstances and considerations as well as…”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump, No. 2025-0402 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2025).
· cites it 3× “2 U.S.C. § 683 (b) (emphasis added). Defendants’ theory requires overlooking the word “unless” to change the meaning of this provision.”
2 U.S.C. § 683(a): 2 cases
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump, 153 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
“2 U.S.C. § 683(a). The message must address the (1) amount at issue; (2) department and project or functions involved; (3) reasons 7 for rescission or reservation; (4) fiscal, economic and budgetary effects; and (5) relevant facts, circumstances and considerations as well as…”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump (AMENDED OPINION), No. 25-5097 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 28, 2025).
“2 U.S.C. § 683(a). The message must address the (1) amount at issue; (2) department and project or functions involved; (3) reasons for rescission or reservation; (4) fiscal, economic and 7 budgetary effects; and (5) relevant facts, circumstances and considerations as well as…”
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.