If, under this chapter, budget authority is required to be made available for obligation and such budget authority is not made available for obligation, the Comptroller General is hereby expressly empowered, through attorneys of his own selection, to bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require such budget authority to be made available for obligation, and such court is hereby expressly empowered to enter in such civil action, against any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States, any decree, judgment, or order which may be necessary or appropriate to make such budget authority available for obligation. No civil action shall be brought by the Comptroller General under this section until the expiration of 25 calendar days of continuous session of the Congress following the date on which an explanatory statement by the Comptroller General of the circumstances giving rise to the action contemplated has been filed with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case:
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986).
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986).
“§ 6384 (a) (duty to impose civil penalties under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975); 15 U. S. C.”
Rogers v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 39 (Ct. Cl. 1987).
· cites it 2× “§ 1406 (current version at 2 U.S.C. § 687 (1982)); see also Rocky Ford Housing Authority v.”
Synar v. United States, 626 F. Supp. 1374 (D.D.C. 1986).
“§ 686 (1982) (Comptroller General shall report unlawful impoundment of *1400 funds to both Houses of Congress); 2 U.S.C. § 687 (1982) (Comptroller General may sue the United States to force obligation of unlawfully impounded funds); 31 U.”
Motions Sys. Corp. v. Bush, 437 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
“See 2 U.S.C. § 687 ; see also 3 U.S.C. § 303 (defining “function” to include “any duty, power, responsibility, authority, or discretion vested in the President or other officer concerned”) (emphasis added).”
Am. Ctr. for Int'l Labor Solidarity v. Chavez-Deremer (D.D.C. 2025).
· cites it 2× “APA Claim for Violation of Impoundment Control Act Is Not Precluded Before turning to the merits of the pending summary judgment motions, defendants raise a threshold issue as to whether plaintiffs may bring an APA challenge for an alleged violation of the Impoundment Control…”
Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Gov't Acct. Off. (D.D.C. 2026).
· cites it 2× “2 U.S.C. § 687 . If Congress does not take any action related to that appropriation within 25 days, GAO is given “tacit approval” by statute to file a legal action challenging that executive impoundment on behalf of the legislative branch.”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump (D.C. Cir. 2025).
“” 2 U.S.C. § 687. As in Block, it does not make sense that the Congress would craft a complex scheme of interbranch dialogue but sub silentio also provide a backdoor for citizen suits at any time and without notice to the Congress of the alleged violation.”
Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump (AMENDED OPINION) (D.C. Cir. 2025).
“” 2 U.S.C. § 687. As in Block, it does not make sense that the Congress would craft a complex scheme of interbranch dialogue but sub silentio also provide a backdoor for citizen suits to enforce the ICA at any time and without notice to the Congress of the alleged violation.”
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.