U.S. Code » Title 2 » Chapter CHAPTER 17B— IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESCISSIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND DEFERRALS OF BUDGET AUTHORITY

2 U.S.C. § 684

Proposed deferrals of budget authority

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 2 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Transmittal of special messageWhenever the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of any department or agency of the United States, or any officer or employee of the United States proposes to defer any budget authority provided for a specific purpose or project, the President shall transmit to the House of Representatives and the Senate a special message specifying—(1) the amount of the budget authority proposed to be deferred;(2) any account, department, or establishment of the Government to which such budget authority is available for obligation, and the specific projects or governmental functions involved;(3) the period of time during which the budget authority is proposed to be deferred;(4) the reasons for the proposed deferral, including any legal authority invoked to justify the proposed deferral;(5) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the proposed deferral; and(6) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed deferral and the decision to effect the proposed deferral, including an analysis of such facts, circumstances, and considerations in terms of their application to any legal authority, including specific elements of legal authority, invoked to justify such proposed deferral, and to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated effect of the proposed deferral upon the objects, purposes, and programs for which the budget authority is provided.A special message may include one or more proposed deferrals of budget authority. A deferral may not be proposed for any period of time extending beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message proposing the deferral is transmitted to the House and the Senate.(b) Consistency with legislative policyDeferrals shall be permissible only—(1) to provide for contingencies;(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or(3) as specifically provided by law.No officer or employee of the United States may defer any budget authority for any other purpose.(c) Exception

The provisions of this section do not apply to any budget authority proposed to be rescinded or that is to be reserved as set forth in a special message required to be transmitted under section 683 of this title.

(Pub. L. 93–344, title X, § 1013, July 12, 1974, 88 Stat. 334; Pub. L. 100–119, title II, § 206(a), Sept. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 785.)Editorial NotesCodification

Section was formerly classified to section 1403 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.

Amendments

1987—Pub. L. 100–119 amended section generally, substituting substantially similar provisions in subsecs. (a) and (c) and substituting subsec. (b) for former subsec. (b) which read as follows: “Any amount of budget authority proposed to be deferred, as set forth in a special message transmitted under subsection (a) of this section, shall be made available for obligation if either House of Congress passes an impoundment resolution disapproving such proposed deferral.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: City of New Haven, Connecticut v. United States, 634 F. Supp. 1449 (D.D.C. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of New Haven, Connecticut v. United States, 634 F. Supp. 1449 (D.D.C. 1986). · cites it 4× “2 U.S.C. § 684 . The President or certain subordinate officers of the *1453 Executive Branch may propose to defer the expenditure of funds without advance congressional approval, but the President must promptly notify Congress of the deferral, the reasons for the deferral, the…”
Byrd v. Raines, 956 F. Supp. 25 (D.D.C. 1997). · cites it 2× “2 U.S.C. § 684 (b). Under the ICA, the President effects a deferral, just as he cancels an item under the Line Item Veto Act, by transmitting to Congress a special message containing statutorily required information.”
Elinor R. Bacon v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 757 F.2d 265 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “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…”
City of New Haven v. United States, 809 F.2d 900 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “Under section 1013 of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (“ICA” or the “Act”), 2 U.S.C. § 684 (1982), the President must indicate his intention to defer a congressional appropriation by sending a “special message” to Congress.”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump (D.C. Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “1987); see also 2 U.S.C. § 684. The Congress may disapprove a proposed deferral through an impoundment resolution.”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump (AMENDED OPINION) (D.C. Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “1987); see also 2 U.S.C. § 684. The Congress may disapprove a proposed deferral through an impoundment resolution.”
Child Trends, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Educ. (D. Maryland 2025). “1987); see also 2 U.S.C. § 684 {a) (outlining the “special message” notification procedure by which the Executive must notify Congress of the proposed deferral).”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump (D.D.C. 2025). “7 7 Defendants rely heavily on 2 U.S.C. § 684 (a), which provides that a deferral “may not be proposed for any period of time extending beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message proposing the deferral is transmitted to the House and the Senate.”
Mid-Ohio Food Bank v. Lyng, 670 F. Supp. 403 (D.D.C. 1987). · cites it 2× “Declaring that the deferral provision of the Impoundment Control Act, 2 U.S.C. § 684 , provides the sole statutory ground for defendants to implement deferrals for policy reasons, and, because that provision is invalid, the deferral of TEFAP or any other funds for policy reasons…”
— 2 U.S.C. § 684(b) — 2 cases
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump (D.C. Cir. 2025). “1987); see also 2 U.S.C. § 684. The Congress may disapprove a proposed deferral through an impoundment resolution.”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump (AMENDED OPINION) (D.C. Cir. 2025). “1987); see also 2 U.S.C. § 684. The Congress may disapprove a proposed deferral through an impoundment resolution.”
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.