The DC Circuit has been considering a case regarding the obligation of funds for the better part of a year.
Posted by The Lawfare Podcast, Checked
- Sources
- 1 contradict6 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 30%
The Lawfare PodcastOct 8, 2026
The sources do not show a pending D.C. Circuit case on fund obligation that had been under consideration for about a year as of 2026-10-08. The one D.C. Circuit ruling on obligation of foreign aid funds (No. 25-5097) was decided on August 13, 2025, so it does not directly confirm the claim, and the claim's duration is not documented.
This claim is about the present, so it is judged as of the day it was checked.
What was said
… Um, now there are other issues about who can sue, about how they obligate the funds, and things like that, and those are still being resolved. Frankly, they've been waiting on the DC Circuit for the better part of a year now. It's a very institute case, which the DC Circuit needs to move on because lots of other cases of great importance are hanging on that now. But, you know, I think this might be an out that this court would be tempted to take. Uh Remember, like, between the two AVAC decisions last term, they flipped just on Judge J Mcconey there, essentially, and, like, this strikes me as a sort of solution that …
The Lawfare Podcast · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Contradicts. A district court motion from August 2025 reports that the D.C. Circuit already ruled on August 13, 2025 in No. 25-5097, the appeal over obligating appropriated foreign aid funds, concluding that plaintiffs lacked a cause of action. That is a decision, not a case still under consideration.[5]
Context. A September 2026 district court reply cites D.C. Circuit precedent on courts' power to suspend obligation deadlines, but it does not say whether any D.C. Circuit appeal on that question was pending or for how long.[3]
Context. The remaining sources are court or fact-checker index pages and general coverage that do not identify a specific pending D.C. Circuit case on fund obligation or its timeline.[1][2][4][6][7]
Sources
7 sources: 2 fact-checkers, 2 primary, 3 not rated
- 1Trump Distorts the Facts in Attack on the Courts - FactCheck.orgfactcheck.org · fact-checker · cited for: context
- 2United States - Full Factfullfact.org · fact-checker · cited for: context
- 3united states district court forlitigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu · primary source · cited for: context
- 4District of Columbia Circuit | United States Court of Appealscadc.uscourts.gov · primary source · cited for: context
- 5IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTstorage.courtlistener.com · not rated · cited for: contradicts
- 6US DC Circuit - Court Decisions - 2026 - FindLaw Caselawcaselaw.findlaw.com · not rated · cited for: context
- 7D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Case Lawsupreme.justia.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- Judge Cobb in the D.C. District Court left open the possibility of requiring funds to be spent after they have technically expired.Can’t tell
- 31 USC 1502(b) allows a statutory expiration date for funds to be extended when a matter is subject to legal dispute by the court.True
- The DC Circuit ruled two-to-one against the government's request for a stay in the SAVE system case.True
- The Trump administration is using the rescission process to refuse expenditures that Congress has directed.True
- The DC Circuit panel that ruled on the SAVE system stay consisted of Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Robert Wilkins, and Judge Greg Katzis.True