U.S. Code » Title 31 » Subtitle SUBTITLE II— THE BUDGET PROCESS › Chapter CHAPTER 13— APPROPRIATIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND PENALTIES

31 U.S.C. § 1341

Limitations on expending and obligating amounts

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 31 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1) Except as specified in this subchapter or any other provision of law, an officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not—(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;(B) involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law;(C) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation of funds required to be sequestered under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985; or(D) involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money required to be sequestered under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.(2) This subsection does not apply to a corporation getting amounts to make loans (except paid in capital amounts) without legal liability of the United States Government.(b) An article to be used by an executive department in the District of Columbia that could be bought out of an appropriation made to a regular contingent fund of the department may not be bought out of another amount available for obligation.(c)(1) In this subsection—(A) the term “covered lapse in appropriations” means any lapse in appropriations that begins on or after December 22, 2018;(B) the term “District of Columbia public employer” means—(i) the District of Columbia Courts;(ii) the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia; or(iii) the District of Columbia government;(C) the term “employee” includes an officer; and(D) the term “excepted employee” means an excepted employee or an employee performing emergency work, as such terms are defined by the Office of Personnel Management or the appropriate District of Columbia public employer, as applicable.(2) Each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations, and each excepted employee who is required to perform work during a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for such work, at the employee’s standard rate of pay, at the earliest date possible after the lapse in appropriations ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates, and subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse.(3) During a covered lapse in appropriations, each excepted employee who is required to perform work shall be entitled to use leave under chapter 63 of title 5, or any other applicable law governing the use of leave by the excepted employee, for which compensation shall be paid at the earliest date possible after the lapse in appropriations ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates.(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 923; Pub. L. 101–508, title XIII, § 13213(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–621; Pub. L. 116–1, § 2, Jan. 16, 2019, 133 Stat. 3; Pub. L. 116–5, § 103, Jan. 25, 2019, 133 Stat. 11.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

1341(a)

31:665(a), (d)(2)(last sentence related to spending and obligations).

R.S. § 3679(a), (d)(2)(last sentence related to spending and obligations); Mar. 3, 1905, ch. 1484, § 4(1st par.), 33 Stat. 1257; Feb. 27, 1906, ch. 510, § 3, 34 Stat. 48; restated Sept. 6, 1950, ch. 896, § 1211, 64 Stat. 765.

1341(b)

31:669(words after semicolon).

Aug. 23, 1912, ch. 350, § 6(words after semicolon), 37 Stat. 414.

In subsection (b), the words “another amount available for obligation” are substituted for “any other fund” for consistency in the revised title.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, referred to in subsec. (a)(1)(C), (D), is classified to section 902 of Title 2, The Congress.

Amendments

2019—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 116–1, § 2(1), in introductory provisions, substituted “Except as specified in this subchapter or any other provision of law, an officer” for “An officer”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 116–1, § 2(2), added subsec. (c).

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 116–5 inserted “, and subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse” before period at end.

1990—Subsec. (a)(1)(C), (D). Pub. L. 101–508 added subpars. (C) and (D).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 278 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Maine Community Health Options v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maine Community Health Options v. United States (2020) scotus · cites it 6× “7, and the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U. S. C. §1341 , “qualified” that obli- gation by making “HHS’s payments contingent on appropri- ations by Congress.”
Williams v. District of Columbia (2006) dc · cites it 20× “The trial court found that the provisions in question violated 31 U.S.C. § 1341 (2003) (often referred to as *94 the Anti-Deficiency Act), and were therefore void ab initio.”
Hercules, Inc. v. United States (1996) scotus · cites it 6× “31 U. S. C. § 1341 . [9] Ordinarily no federal appropriation covers contractors' payments to third-party tort claimants in these circumstances, and the Comptroller General has repeatedly ruled that Government procurement agencies may not enter into the type of open-ended…”
Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Leavitt (2005) scotus · cites it 4× “2d 743, 747-748 (1966) ( per curiam ); 31 U. S. C. §§ 1341 (a)(1)(A) and (B) (Anti-Deficiency Act); 41 *643 U.”
William O. Schism and Robert Reinlie v. United States (2002) cafc · cites it 3× “To say that the Executive Branch could promise future funds for activities that Congress itself had not authorized would also violate both the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341 (a)(1)(B) (stating that a federal employee “may not .”
Burke v. Barnes (1987) scotus · cites it 4× “4042 might at some future date be subject to recovery under the provisions of 31 U. S. C. §§ 1341 , 1349-1351, 3521. These laws relate to the auditing and account settlement of Government expenditures by the Comptroller General.”
Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Salazar (2011) ca10 · cites it 6× “31 U.S.C. § 1341 (a)(1). The government claims that these provisions bar the Secretary from paying total CSCs, and that they strip the United States of liability to individual contractors above the contractor's pro rata share.”
Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond (1990) scotus · cites it 2× “See 31 U. S. C. §§ 1341 , 1350. If an executive officer on his own initiative had decided that, in fairness, respondent should receive benefits despite the statutory bar, the official would risk prosecution.”
Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States (2018) cafc · cites it 2× “That Act provides that “[a]n officer or employee of the United States Government .”
Springfield Parcel C, LLC v. United States (2015) uscfc · cites it 4× “§ 3307 ; material terms of agency’s request for lease proposals; condition imposed by congressional committees on appropriations for the lease; contravention of material terms of request for lease proposals and of condition on appropriation; enforcement of limitation on…”
Policy & Research, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (2018) cadc · cites it 2× “Consequently, whether one considers the text of the regulations, the text of the Grants Policy Statement, or HHS's own funding announcements, HHS is mistaken to argue here that the agency intends for a grant recipient's "period of performance" to be the 12-month "budget period"…”
First Enterprise v. United States (2004) uscfc · cites it 4× “Under the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341 (a)(1)(A) 16 , the agency simply was not permitted to award a contract at a price in excess of the “amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation.”
Show all 278 citing cases →
— 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1) — 1 case
Authority of USDA to Award Monetary Relief for Discrimination (1994) olc
— 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(B) — 1 case
Baude v. United States (2018) uscfc
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.