This week’s federal policy round-up covers executive authority, free speech, immigration protections, public health, and environmental policy. From a Justice Department memo challenging the constitutionality of a decades-old records law, to court rulings preserving TPS protections and abortion medication access, federal decisions continue to test the boundaries between the branches of government.
Shutdown Pay Directive Circumvents Congressional Authority
On April 3, President Trump directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to continue paying employees during the ongoing shutdown by redirecting existing funds deemed connected to DHS functions, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget. The presidential memorandum extends earlier pay protections for Transportation Security Administration workers to the broader DHS workforce, many of whom had been working without pay.
By funding agency operations without a new appropriation, the directive directly implicates Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending and shifts core budget control to the executive branch during a funding lapse. While it alleviates immediate operational strain, it does so by sidestepping the legislative process that is meant to govern how funds are used. If sustained or replicated, this approach could weaken congressional control over appropriations and alter the balance of power between the branches, particularly in high-stakes disputes over immigration enforcement and DHS priorities.
DOJ Limits Access to Presidential Records Used for Oversight
The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo declaring the Presidential Records Act, a law that has governed presidential records since 1978, unconstitutional. The opinion appears to give President Trump broader authority to withhold records from his current term and avoid transferring them to the National Archives. Because Office of Legal Counsel opinions are typically binding across the executive branch, the guidance introduces uncertainty for the National Archives’ longstanding process of reviewing and releasing presidential records.
The opinion could also be applied retroactively, potentially reclassifying decades of presidential records as personal and limiting court authority to order their release. This memo arrives as thousands of pages of records from past administrations were scheduled for release and in wake of President’s Trump’s 2023 indictment alleging mishandling of classified documents. Historians, journalists, Congressional oversight bodies, and advocacy organizations may face new barriers to obtaining records used to understand government decision-making and hold leaders accountable. By expanding presidential control over records that Congress previously designated as federal property, the move also raises separation-of-powers concerns. Lawsuits challenging the opinion are expected.
Budget Proposal Prioritizes Military Spending Over Domestic Programs
The Trump administration released a fiscal year 2027 budget proposal. Presidential budget proposals serve primarily as outlines of the president’s policy priorities. Federal appropriations are determined by Congress, which rarely mirrors the president’s budget proposal. The proposal calls for increasing defense spending to $1.5 trillion while reducing non-defense spending by ten percent, including proposed cuts to agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It also maintains funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and expands detention capacity. In discussing his budgetary priorities, the president stated, “It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things… We have to take care of one thing: military protection,” indicating a further shift from federal responsibility for social services toward military spending.
Court Preserves Status Quo for Abortion Medication Distribution for Now
A federal district court in Louisiana declined to block nationwide access to the medication mifepristone by mail, allowing current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules permitting telehealth prescriptions and mail delivery to remain in place while the agency conducts a routine safety review. The court granted the FDA’s request to pause the case and ordered a status update within six months, indicating it may revisit the issue. The challenge sought to undo a regulatory framework governing a drug that has been used for more than 25 years without mainstream scientific concern about its safety.
By leaving these rules in place, the decision preserves a primary pathway to abortion care for patients nationwide, including tens of millions of people who cannot travel out of state and would otherwise lose access to legal abortions. At the same time, access remains contingent on the FDA’s ongoing review and future court action, while patients and providers face increasing legal risk from state-level enforcement targeting the mailing of abortion medication.
Proposed Changes Increase Exposure to Coal Ash Linked to Cancer and Neurological Harm
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed rolling back regulations governing coal ash disposal, including reducing groundwater monitoring requirements and limiting cleanup obligations. It would also expand permissible uses of coal ash, a byproduct that contains toxic heavy metals and can contaminate drinking water. The proposal is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to support the coal industry and extend the operation of existing plants through regulatory changes.
The EPA’s proposal reduces federal safeguards designed to prevent contamination of water sources and shifts greater risk onto nearby communities, particularly low-income and rural areas where coal ash sites are often located. By narrowing cleanup requirements and weakening monitoring, the proposal reduces the ability to detect and respond to contamination, increasing exposure to heavy metals linked to cancer and neurological damage.
Immigration Appeals Board Rejects Khalil’s Challenge While Free Speech Case Remains Pending
Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and student protester, continues to face deportation based on his pro-Palestinian activism. He appealed a prior immigration ruling, arguing the government added new allegations after he challenged his detention and that the judge refused to consider his constitutional claims. This week, an immigration appeals board denied that appeal, allowing deportation proceedings to move forward but not deciding whether he will be removed. Khalil, who was previously detained and later released, is also pursuing a separate federal court case raising First Amendment claims. Immigration courts, which are part of the executive branch, decide deportation cases, while federal courts are independent and can review constitutional rights and override immigration court rulings. Khalil’s case was among the first in which the administration sought to pursue deportation based on pro-Palestinian advocacy, and similar cases are now pending in the courts, meaning the final outcome will shape how speech-related claims are treated in other immigration proceedings.
Court Pauses Termination of TPS for Ethiopians
On April 8, a federal district court in Massachusetts blocked the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 5,000 Ethiopians, allowing them to remain in the United States with work authorization while litigation continues. This comes after a court order temporarily stayed the February 13 termination deadline. The court found the administration ended the designation without following procedures required by Congress and paused the termination.
TPS, administered by DHS, provides protection from deportation for individuals from countries facing conflict or humanitarian crises. The ruling preserves existing protections but leaves their long-term status uncertain as broader challenges to TPS terminations continue in federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on April 29 on the administration’s broader effort to terminate TPS for Syrian and Haitian nationals, with a decision expected by summer. You can learn more about TPS litigation here.
Court Blocks Trump Administration Effort to Collect Race Data from Universities
A federal district court in Boston issued a preliminary injunction on Friday blocking the Trump administration’s effort to require universities to submit detailed admissions data on applicants’ race, GPA, and test scores. The ruling applies to public universities in states that joined a lawsuit filed by 17 Democratic attorneys general. While the court found the Federal Government likely has authority to collect such data, it found the rollout was “rushed and chaotic,” citing a lack of meaningful notice-and-comment process.
The data collection, ordered in August, required schools to retroactively report seven years of admissions data disaggregated by race and sex through the National Center for Education Statistics. The administration argued the policy was needed to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision restricting affirmative action, while states argued it threatened student privacy and could lead to unwarranted investigations. Affected public universities are temporarily relieved of compliance burdens tied to compiling extensive historical admissions data, though separate federal pressure on institutions like Harvard to turn over admissions data continues. Privacy concerns remain central, as the required data could expose sensitive student information and potentially trigger federal investigations into admissions practices targeting minority students.