Train v. City of New York

Argued November 12, 1974
Decided February 18, 1975
Full case name Train v. City of New York
Citations

420 U.S. 35 (more)

95 S. Ct. 839; 43 L. Ed. 2d 1
Holding
"The 1972 Amendments do not permit the Administrator to allot to the States under § 205(a) less than the entire amounts authorized to be appropriated by § 207. Pp. 420 U. S. 42-49."
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Case opinions
Majority White, joined by Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist
Concurrence Douglas
Laws applied
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 to the Clean Water Act, 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp III) (1972 Act)

Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States whose implications mean "[t]he president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment."[1]

In this case, President Richard Nixon was of the view that the administration was not obligated to disburse all funds allocated by Congress to states seeking federal monetary assistance under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and ordered the impoundment of substantial amounts of environmental protection funds for a program he vetoed, and which had been overridden by Congress.[1] Russell E. Train, the administrator of the EPA at the time, complied with the order. Several prospective recipients of the funds (which were intended to subsidize construction of municipal sewers and water treatment works), including the city of New York and several other municipalities, promptly sued, seeking judgment that the administrator was obligated to disburse full amounts authorized and an order directing him to make those allotments.

The Court ruled that the president could not order the impoundment of substantial amounts of environmental protection funds for a program in these circumstances. The president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment.[1]

The case arose from facts which pre-date the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, though the case was argued after the passing of the 1974 Act. The case showed that the presidential power of impoundment, even without the 1974 Act, was not unlimited and that the president is required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which budget authority is provided by the United States Congress. In this case, the president could not order the impoundment of substantial amounts of environmental protection funds for a program he vetoed, and which had been overridden by Congress. This finding closed a potential loophole in the Act.

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 Presidential Powers - Power Of Impoundment, law.jrank.org, retrieved 2009-12-24


This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 2/3/2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.