Arguments in a lawsuit to allow D.C. to spend its budget free from Congressional approval were heard before a federal judge today, as the Council made its case against Mayor Vince Gray and D.C. Chief Financial Officer Jeffrey DeWitt.
The lawsuit was brought after Gray presented the Council with the budget for fiscal year 2015 and announced that he and DeWitt would refuse to implement any budget adopted pursuant to the Budget Autonomy Act. Last year, 83 percent of District voters voted for budget autonomy, and the act was unanimously passed by the Council and signed into law by Gray. It even passed the federally mandated 30-day review period without a peep from Congress. But trouble over the legality of the act surfaced in January when the Government Accountability Office issued a 12-page opinion saying that the referendum has “no legal effect.”
At today’s hearing, an attorney for each side made their case to U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. On the plaintiff’s side, attorney Karen Dunn’s argument was essentially a history lesson in the Home Rule Act of 1973, in which Congress transferred D.C.’s funds out of the U.S. Treasury and into the D.C. General Fund, satisfying federal budget statutes requiring an appropriation of funds outside of the Treasury, since D.C. is not a state. Under Home Rule, the city needs to get legislative approval from Congress before withdrawing any local money out of the D.C. General Fund, as the District Charter requires a second level of approval.
While this has been the case since 1973, Dunn argued that Congress implemented the ability for the District to amend the Charter—the only part of the Home Rule Act that can be amended. And that’s exactly what the city did last year with the Budget Autonomy Act. But that raises the question, which Sullivan posed: “Why has it taken 40 years to make this argument?” Well, because “no one has ever tried before,” Dunn said.
Gray’s and DeWitt’s refusal to accept the legality of the referendum comes from a recommendation by D.C. Attorney General Irv Nathan, who argued the case on behalf of the officials today. Nathan was keen to point out that both “the mayor and the CFO both support budget autonomy,” but don’t think that the referendum is legal, arguing that the Home Rule Act doesn’t actually include language allowing the city to budget and spend money without Congressional approval.
So, that’s essentially the essence of the issue and what Sullivan has been tasked with determining: Is there a provision in the Home Rule Act that gives city voters and officials the power to free the budget from Congressional oversight?
After hearing both sides, Sullivan indicated that he sympathized with the Council’s struggle to keep the budget autonomy referendum, but said that he “may be in a situation where it is powerless to provide a legal remedy to so many people who are arguably entitled to the right to spend their own money,” as the National Law Journal reports. Ultimately a decision wasn’t made today, but Sullivan did say that he plans to issue a ruling soon, though didn’t specify when that might happen.
