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.
Posted by The Lawfare Podcast, Checked
- Sources
- 4 support1 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 70%
The Lawfare PodcastOct 8, 2026
Federal courts in the D.D.C. and the D.C. Circuit, as quoted in the sources, read 31 U.S.C. § 1502(b) to let courts suspend a funding lapse while litigation is pending, which matches the claim.
What was said
… And the move is this: Both judges looked at both DC. Circuit precedent and then the US. Code, and found in the US. Code a provision which has been used for this purpose, for this entirely novel, although it has not been widely used, this 31 USC. 1502 b), for anyone reading along at home. This provision essentially says, if there is a statutory expiration date, that can be extended where a matter is subject to legal dispute by the court. And this doubles up with a similar equitable power that has existed in the DC. Circuit, actually, for several decades now, hasn't been used broadly. …
The Lawfare Podcast · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. The September 2026 D.D.C. order in the Hennepin/Citizen.org litigation grants a motion to suspend the September 30, 2026 statutory lapse, relying on 31 U.S.C. § 1502(b) and quoting the D.C. Circuit's view that it expressly authorizes courts to suspend lapses while lawsuits proceed.[3]
Supports. The September 30, 2026 order in Global Health Council v. Trump suspends statutory lapses for the appropriations at issue pending resolution of the claims, consistent with the court holding open the period of availability.[4]
Supports. Plaintiffs' reply brief cites Goodluck v. Biden (D.C. Cir. 2024) for the view that § 1502(b) authorizes courts to suspend the lapse of budget authority and make funds available beyond the appropriation's end.[1]
Supports. The statute's subsection (b) says that a lapse-to-Treasury provision does not affect the status of lawsuits or rights of action involving an amount payable from the balance, which is the textual basis the courts rely on.[2]
Contradicts. The government's opposition, as described in the plaintiffs' reply, argues that § 1502(b) does not allow courts to extend an obligation deadline when agency unlawfulness prevented timely obligation; this is a contested reading rather than an authoritative contradiction.[1]
Context. A 2026 impoundment remedies brief lists § 1502(b) as one of several exceptions to the rule against post-expiration obligation, alongside equitable extension, though it frames the (b) exception as an order to obligate funds to a plaintiff with the right to them.[5]
Sources
5 sources: 2 primary, 3 not rated
- 1united states district court forlitigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu · primary source · cited for: contradicts, supports
- 231 U.S.C. § 1502: Balances availableuscode.house.gov · primary source · cited for: supports
- 3united states district courtcitizen.org · not rated · cited for: supports
- 4Order – #223 in GLOBAL HEALTH COUNCIL v. DONALD J. TRUMP (D.D.C., 1:25-cv-00402) – CourtListener.comcourtlistener.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 5Seeking Remedies in Impoundment Cases When Funding Is Poised ...governingforimpact.org · 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
- The DC Circuit has been considering a case regarding the obligation of funds for the better part of a year.Can’t tell
- The Trump administration is using the rescission process to refuse expenditures that Congress has directed.True