Every year, Congress directs how billions of your tax dollars are to be spent, funding everything from highway construction to programs for crime victims. But what happens when a new administration decides it simply doesn’t like the programs that Congress has funded?

This question is at the heart of a recent federal court decision that is critically important for every American voter, because it tests a fundamental principle:

Does the President have to spend your tax money as Congress directed, or can he unilaterally defund programs he opposes and redirect the money to his own priorities?

A federal judge has just allowed the Trump administration to claw back nearly $800 million in grants intended for violence reduction and victim support, calling the action “shameful” even as he ruled that he was powerless to stop it. This case is a sobering lesson in the immense power of the executive branch and the stark limits of our judiciary.

A “Shameful” Act the Courts Cannot Stop

The case revolved around the Department of Justice’s decision in April to cancel more than 360 grant awards across the country. The DOJ claimed this was part of a “priority shift” to combat violent crime and support specific law enforcement operations. The five organizations that sued argued that this sudden cancellation violated the law and pulled the rug out from under vulnerable communities, causing layoffs and program closures.

In a paradoxical ruling, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta seemed to agree with the plaintiffs on the merits of their complaint. “Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful,” he wrote in his decision.

“It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence.”

Yet, he dismissed the case. Why? Because, as he concluded, his “displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.” He ruled that his court ultimately lacked the proper jurisdiction to intervene and that the organizations had failed to state a clear constitutional violation that would allow him to block the DOJ’s action.

The Power of the Purse on Trial

This ruling, while a procedural loss for the plaintiffs, exposes a deep constitutional conflict over the separation of powers. Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive “power of the purse.” It is the legislative branch that appropriates federal funds for specific purposes. The President’s duty under the Constitution’s Take Care Clause is to see that these laws are “faithfully executed.”

The DOJ’s “priority shift” is a dangerous euphemism for what is essentially a form of executive impoundment—a refusal to spend money for the purpose Congress intended. By canceling grants that were lawfully created and funded by the legislature, the executive branch is effectively nullifying a law it dislikes. It claims the power to not only execute the laws, but to veto them after the fact through administrative action, a direct assault on Congress’s most fundamental authority.

The Limits of Judicial Review

This case is a powerful, if frustrating, lesson in how our system of checks and balances works. A judge can personally believe an action is harmful and wrong, but the judiciary is not an all-powerful arbiter of what is “right.”

Courts are constrained by their own strict rules of jurisdiction and legal standing.

If plaintiffs cannot prove a specific and direct constitutional violation or find the correct legal avenue to bring their case, a judge’s hands are tied. The executive branch holds immense power, and if it can frame its actions in a way that avoids judicial scrutiny—for instance, by calling the cancellation of hundreds of grants a “run-of-the-mill contract dispute”—it can often proceed unchecked by the courts.

The court’s decision has now opened the door for any administration, of any party, to potentially defund congressionally-approved programs it ideologically opposes simply by declaring a “priority shift.” It erodes the power of Congress to direct spending and leaves communities across the country vulnerable to the political whims of the White House.

While Judge Mehta may have felt powerless to act, his ruling has revealed a deep vulnerability in our system—where the executive’s power to execute the law can be twisted into a power to effectively nullify it.