After previous efforts were blocked by courts, Trump wants to eliminate more funding during the shutdown

Congress has constitutional power, but President Donald Trump’s forceful assertion of executive power is testing even this basic principle of American democracy.

His administration has already canceled or threatened to cancel billions of dollars in previously approved federal spending, and now wants to pursue more funding during the government shutdown.

States, cities, nonprofits and other groups have responded with more than 150 lawsuits accusing the Republican administration of illegally seizing power.

An Associated Press analysis shows that so far, these lawsuits have mostly succeeded in derailing the Republican president’s spending moves, at least temporarily. But most of the legal battles are far from over, and the Supreme Court, where Trump has had more success so far, could have the final say on at least some of them.

The court’s conservative majority was receptive, at least, to the initial rulings on several of the administration’s emergency appeals. Legal experts say that the two recent decisions taken by the court may bode well for the administration’s efforts to gain more control over government spending. Here’s a look at the current legal outcome and what could lie ahead:

The courts have issued most of their rulings against the administration so far

As of early October, court orders were at least temporarily blocking Trump administration decisions in 66 of 152 lawsuits over federal spending, an AP analysis shows. In 37 of those cases, the courts allowed the administration to continue. In 26 cases, the judge has not yet issued a ruling in this regard. The remaining 23 were dropped or merged.

This number reflects decisions by district courts, appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, and will almost certainly change as the cases progress.

He watches: A look at Russell Foot’s influence and push to reshape government

The wave of lawsuits reflects not only the administration’s aggressive efforts to wrest control of spending, but also the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to respond, said Zachary Price, a constitutional law professor at UC San Francisco School of Law.

“Congress seems to be following its partisan interests more than its institutional interests, and that puts a lot of pressure on the courts,” he said.

It is difficult to determine how much money the administration has withheld

Government watchdogs say the administration is blatantly ignoring a requirement in the 1974 Custodial Control Act that requires Congress to be notified of funding freezes.

Research by Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees estimated that the administration had frozen, canceled or sought to block a total of $410 billion as of early September. This equates to about 6% of the federal budget for the year ending September 30.

The administration objected to this number.

Since the shutdown began this month, the administration has targeted more funding, primarily in places represented by Democrats.

The Trump administration is taking a page from Nixon

Legal scholars say that no president has attempted such massive, unilateral cuts since Richard Nixon. Experts say these moves reflect an expansive view of executive power that conflicts with sequestration control law, court rulings and the Constitution, which gives Congress sovereignty over spending.

“The authority they are claiming is the ability to delay and withhold funds throughout the year without input from Congress,” said Serene Lindgrensavage, counsel for Defend Democracy, which is involved in multiple lawsuits against the administration. “This is a theft of Congress’ power of the purse.”

In a letter to Congress earlier this year, the White House said it was “committed to putting America’s fiscal house in order by reducing weaponized and wasteful government spending.”

White House Budget Director Ross Vought, a proponent of withholding federal funds, said presidents have long had the ability to spend less money than Congress has appropriated if they can cut waste or be more efficient, and that this power is necessary to address the nation’s massive debt.

The government shutdown has opened up a new opportunity to cut spending, he said this month on “The Charlie Kirk Show.”

“If I could just work to save money, I would do everything I could to look for opportunities to downsize in areas where this administration thought, ‘This is our path to a balanced budget.’”

The administration has cut entire agencies

The 152 cases identified by the AP challenge the closure of government agencies and offices, the elimination of grants and other aid, and the imposition of new conditions on federal funding.

The administration has used cuts, or the threat of them, to try to impose its policies on gender, race, immigration and other issues.

But it’s not just about money. These funds supported jobs, school lunches, health programs, scientific research, infrastructure projects, foreign aid, disaster preparedness, education initiatives and other programs.

Some notable rulings against the administration include restoring funding to 14 states that sued over nearly $2 billion withheld for electric vehicle chargers and blocking potentially sweeping cuts in funding to some of the nation’s largest cities over “sanctuary” immigration policies.

The justices raised constitutional concerns

The justices who ruled against the administration often found good reason to believe that cuts, or the threat of cuts, would violate the Constitution’s separation of powers by usurping Congress’s authority over spending.

They also ruled that the moves were likely arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act, the law that governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

The judges who sided with the administration likened at least some of the legal claims before them to contract disputes that belong in a different court: the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

This court, whose origins date back to the mid-19th century, deals with lawsuits brought by citizens seeking money from the federal government. Referred to as the “People’s Court,” it is separate from the local courts that handle most of the high-profile lawsuits against the administration.

The Supreme Court has often sided with the White House

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices allowed the administration to proceed with its plans to close the Education Department, freeze $5 billion in foreign aid and cut hundreds of millions of dollars for teacher training and research supported by the National Institutes of Health.

These decisions may make it more difficult to challenge the administration’s spending cuts, although the Supreme Court has not yet considered their final legality or overturned the lower court’s rulings.

In the National Institutes of Health case, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in August that lawsuits related to defunding grants generally cannot be fully handled by federal district courts. Instead, plaintiffs must file a lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims to get any money and go to district courts if they want to challenge the directives that led to the grant’s termination.

The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision is still unfolding, but it may force plaintiffs in grant-funding cases to start over in a new courtroom. In some cases, plaintiffs may have to decide whether they want to sue on two fronts.

In the foreign aid case, the Supreme Court noted in a 6-3 decision in September that the sequestration control law does not give private parties the right to sue over so-called enclave cancellation.

This is when the president makes a request to Congress not to spend approved funds, but does so so late in the fiscal year that Congress does not have time to act and the money is not spent.

Trump notified House Speaker Mike Johnson in August to cancel $5 billion in foreign aid approved by Congress, effectively cutting the budget without passing through the legislature.

Although the Supreme Court emphasized that its decision was preliminary, legal experts say it may make it easier for the Trump administration to use this tactic again.

Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.