Fact Check: Legal Experts Doubt the Success of States Withholding Federal Funds
What We Know
Recent legislative efforts in several Democratic-led states aim to counteract the Trump administration's withholding of federal funds. Bills have been introduced in states like Connecticut, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin, allowing these states to withhold payments owed to the federal government if they determine that the federal government has failed to provide funds that were previously approved by Congress (NBC News).
Legal experts have expressed skepticism regarding these initiatives, citing the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause, which grants the federal government precedence over state laws. This legal framework complicates the arguments that states could use to defend such withholding actions (NBC News). Furthermore, experts like David Super from Georgetown University Law Center have noted that the federal government typically provides significantly more funding to states than states provide to the federal government, making the impact of such withholding actions minimal (NBC News).
Analysis
The claim that "legal experts doubt the success of states withholding federal funds" is supported by multiple sources. Legal analysts have raised concerns about the constitutional validity of state-level actions to withhold federal payments, suggesting that such measures could face significant legal challenges. For instance, David Super pointed out that states withholding money might worsen the situation for programs affected by federal cuts, as these payments are often tied to federal benefits (NBC News).
Moreover, the potential for retaliation from the federal government poses another significant risk. Lawmakers like David Moon from Maryland have acknowledged that the federal government holds more leverage in budgetary matters, which could lead to adverse consequences for states attempting to assert their rights through withholding actions (NBC News).
While some legal experts advocate for states to explore creative legal avenues to challenge federal actions, the consensus remains that the practical and legal hurdles are substantial. The overarching sentiment among legal analysts is that these state initiatives may not succeed, primarily due to the constitutional framework and the inherent power dynamics between state and federal governments.
Conclusion
The verdict on the claim that "legal experts doubt the success of states withholding federal funds" is True. The evidence indicates that legal experts have significant reservations about the feasibility and legality of such state actions. The constitutional supremacy of federal law, combined with the practical implications of withholding funds, suggests that these legislative efforts are unlikely to succeed in achieving their intended outcomes.
