Fact Check: Legal experts warn states face hurdles in withholding federal payments.

Fact Check: "Legal experts warn states face hurdles in withholding federal payments."

What We Know

The claim that "legal experts warn states face hurdles in withholding federal payments" is based on recent legislative efforts by several states to counteract federal funding freezes. In response to actions taken by the Trump administration to withhold federal funds, Democratic legislators in states like Connecticut, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin have proposed bills that would allow states to withhold payments owed to the federal government if they believe federal agencies are unlawfully withholding funds that should be allocated to them (NBC News).

Legal experts have pointed out that these proposed measures would face significant legal challenges. The U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause grants the federal government precedence over state laws, which complicates the legal arguments that states might use to defend such actions (NBC News). Furthermore, experts note that the financial dynamics are skewed, as the federal government provides significantly more funding to states than vice versa, making the impact of withholding state payments minimal (NBC News).

Analysis

The claim is supported by the context of ongoing legislative efforts and expert opinions regarding the feasibility of such actions. The proposed legislation in various states is indeed a response to perceived overreach by the federal government in withholding funds, which has been described as "illegal" by some state lawmakers (NBC News). However, the legal experts cited in the discussions raise valid concerns about the constitutional and practical hurdles that these states would face.

For instance, David Super, a law professor, emphasized that the supremacy clause could undermine state efforts to withhold payments, as it establishes federal law as the supreme law of the land (NBC News). Additionally, the potential for negative repercussions on state programs if they fail to make required payments to the federal government adds another layer of complexity to the situation (NBC News).

While the proposed measures reflect a growing frustration among state lawmakers, the legal landscape indicates that these efforts may not be straightforward or effective. The analysis suggests that while states are attempting to assert their rights, the legal framework may not support their initiatives effectively.

Conclusion

The verdict on the claim is "Partially True." While it accurately reflects the concerns of legal experts regarding the challenges states would face in withholding federal payments, it does not fully capture the context of the legislative efforts being made. The proposed bills are indeed a response to federal actions, and while they face hurdles, the situation is dynamic and reflects ongoing tensions between state and federal authorities.

Fact Check: Legal experts warn states face hurdles in withholding federal payments.