INTRODUCTION
On May 28, 2025, President Joe Biden signed into law a short-term continuing resolution—H.R. 1968, the American Relief Act of 2025—just hours before the expiration of existing appropriations, thereby averting a partial government shutdown scheduled for that midnight deadline. This stopgap funding bill extends federal funding at current levels through September 30, 2025, while negotiations over the full Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 appropriations proceed. The episode spotlights enduring tensions between the executive and legislative branches over the power of the purse and the constitutional requirement that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 7).
The legislative impasse underscores competing interpretations of Congress’s exclusive authority to appropriate funds versus the executive’s duty to enforce statutes faithfully. Under the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, federal agencies are barred from obligating or expending funds in excess of or before an appropriation unless authorized by law. Failure to enact interim or full-year appropriations triggers an enforced shutdown of non-essential government activities, with broad economic and social repercussions.
This article advances the thesis that stopgap measures, while necessary for short-term operations, exacerbate structural failures in the congressional appropriations process and reveal constitutional ambiguities regarding separation of powers and accountability. As constitutional scholar Heather Gerken has noted, “Continual reliance on continuing resolutions reflects a crisis of institutional design rather than temporary political dysfunction”. By tracing the legal frameworks, historical precedents, ongoing proceedings, and diverse political perspectives, this analysis illuminates the deeper tensions in American fiscal governance.
LEGAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The core statutory authority governing federal expenditures is encapsulated in the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, which vests in Congress the exclusive power to allocate public funds. Complementing this, the Antideficiency Act (“ADA”), codified at 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341–1342 and 1517, prohibits officials from obligating funds without Congressional appropriation and establishes criminal and administrative penalties for violations. The ADA’s genesis dates to the Act of June 30, 1876, which prohibited agencies from exceeding allocated appropriations and laid the foundation for subsequent clarity in 31 U.S.C. § 1341.
Following early 20th-century budget expansions, Congress enacted the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 2 U.S.C. §§ 681–688, to restrict presidential non-spending of appropriated funds and restore legislative supremacy in fiscal matters. The Act introduced formal rescission and deferral procedures, requiring presidential proposals be subject to Congressional discharge.
Throughout U.S. history, funding gaps have prompted intermittent government closures. The 21-day lapse in late 1995 under Speaker Newt Gingrich illustrated the severity of shutdowns, disrupting national parks, scientific research, and federal regulatory functions. The GAO’s analysis emphasizes that even brief lapses impose long-term costs on agency operations and public trust. Scholar Sarah A. Binder of the Brookings Institution argues that “shutdown brinkmanship has become entrenched as a bargaining tool, corroding institutional norms”.
Key judicial precedents have also shaped the legal landscape. In United States v. MacCollom (426 U.S. 317 (1976)), the Supreme Court affirmed that courts lack jurisdiction over claims arising from funding lapses, underscoring the appropriations power as non-justiciable political question. Similarly, Lincoln v. Vigil (508 U.S. 182 (1993)) held that courts may not compel agency action under ADA, reinforcing executive discretion within statutory bounds. These decisions confirm Congress’s paramount role in funding decisions, while delineating limited judicial oversight.
CASE STATUS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The May 2025 stopgap emerged amidst a fraught legislative calendar. H.R. 1968 passed the House on May 27, 2025, by a 217–213 vote (largely along party lines), with Speaker Mike Johnson noting that “We will not let partisanship grind government to a halt”. The Senate approved the measure shortly thereafter, 54–46, with Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer conceding that “While imperfect, this bipartisan agreement prioritizes the American people over political brinkmanship”.
President Biden signed the bill on May 28, 2025, officially enacting a full-year continuing resolution that maintains FY 2024 spending levels—with targeted increases for defense and disaster relief—and rescinds selected non-essential domestic programs. The White House emphasized that the resolution buys Congress “the time necessary to negotiate full appropriations for FY 2025”.
No formal legal challenges have been filed to date regarding H.R. 1968. However, advocacy groups have signaled potential ADA inquiries if agencies attempt to interpret the resolution expansively. The Government Accountability Office has been asked by Senator Patty Murray to issue an opinion on whether key immigration and environmental programs can continue under the CR’s terms. Amicus briefs are expected from the Brennan Center for Justice, arguing for strict adherence to appropriation limits, and from the National Federation of Independent Business, warning of economic disruptions if funding is not timely restored.
VIEWPOINTS AND COMMENTARY
Progressive / Liberal Perspectives
Progressive commentators warn that stopgap budgeting undermines democratic accountability. The Brennan Center’s Heather Gerken criticizes “the steady erosion of Congress’s power of the purse, which diminishes public oversight and fuels uncertainty for vulnerable communities”. Senate Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders argues that “Continuing resolutions are a band-aid, not a solution; they perpetuate austerity and stall meaningful investments in healthcare, education, and infrastructure” (U.S. Senate Press Release, May 27, 2025). Civil rights groups highlight that agencies such as the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division face operational delays, threatening enforcement of voting-rights statutes and anti-discrimination laws.
Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Rosa DeLauro, emphasize the moral imperative to fund social programs without interruption. In a floor speech, DeLauro stated, “Every day we delay full appropriations, we risk closing vital community health centers and food assistance programs for millions of Americans” (Congressional Record, May 26, 2025). Legal scholars like Cass Sunstein argue that protracted reliance on CRs “tilts policy outcomes toward entrenched status quo interests, as advocates cannot predict funding streams”.
Conservative / Right-Leaning Perspectives
Conservative voices defend stopgap measures as pragmatic tools to avoid shutdowns while fiscal debates continue. The Heritage Foundation’s Tommy Binion contends that “Short-term CRs encourage fiscal discipline by constraining excessive spending and forcing lawmakers to negotiate responsibly”. Senator Mitch McConnell justified the CR as “a necessary step to keep the government open and protect national security, especially in an era of global uncertainty” (Senate Floor Remarks, May 27, 2025).
Republican policymakers often underscore the ADA’s role in preventing executive overreach. Cato Institute scholar Michael Rappaport asserts, “The Antideficiency Act is Congress’s ultimate check on unauthorized executive spending, and CRs reinforce this boundary” (Cato Institute Policy Analysis, March 2025). National security advocates note that defense readiness cannot be compromised by partisan standoffs, and a CR ensures uninterrupted training and operations.
Critics from the right, however, caution that CRs institutionalize a lack of fiscal seriousness. American Enterprise Institute fellow Norman Ornstein warned last year that “Continuing resolutions have morphed from rare stopgaps into the default budgetary procedure, reflecting congressional dysfunction”. Some conservative fiscal hawks argue for automatic continuing resolutions (auto-CRs) to eliminate brinkmanship, though originalist scholars question whether such mechanisms dilute the Appropriations Clause’s intent.
COMPARABLE OR HISTORICAL CASES
The 1995–96 shutdowns under Speaker Newt Gingrich provide a vivid historical parallel. That 21-day closure arose from disputes over Medicare reforms and federal spending levels. Constitutional historian Heather Cox Richardson observed, “The 1995 shutdown taught us that procedural leverage can yield unintended policy consequences, costing billions and eroding trust” (American Historical Review, 2010). The resulting Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1996 ended the impasse, but only after substantial concessions on both sides.
The 2018–19 shutdown, the longest in U.S. history, centered on border security funding. In NTEU v. US, unions challenged workforce furloughs, but courts deferred to the ADA’s mandate, declining to compel back pay during the lapse. This episode illustrated judicial reluctance to intervene in appropriations disputes and reaffirmed fiscal separation of powers.
International comparisons reveal divergent practices. In the United Kingdom, “automatic shutdown” does not occur; government spending continues under the authority of the Crown. Contrastingly, in Canada, Parliament can enact interim supply votes without full appropriations, allowing essential services to function—a model some experts cite as a balanced alternative.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND FORECASTING
Short-term, the May 2025 CR averts an immediate disruption to federal operations, safeguarding programs from the Labor Department to NASA. Yet, the brittle reliance on continuing resolutions perpetuates uncertainty, complicating multi-year federal initiatives such as infrastructure planning under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Long-term, repeated stopgaps undermine public trust in governance. The Brookings Institution’s Molly Reynolds warns that “Year-after-year CRs send a message that Congress cannot fulfill its basic constitutional responsibilities”. This uncertainty may dampen private sector investment in federally supported research and technology partnerships.
Policymakers are now considering structural reforms: automatic continuing resolutions tied to prior-year funding, or biennial budgeting, to provide stability. The Brennan Center recommends increased Congressional Budget Office oversight and mandatory “shutdown impact analyses” before funding lapses.
Internationally, the U.S. fiscal reliability affects its credit rating and diplomatic leverage. Moody’s and S&P have noted that protracted budgetary brinkmanship could erode America’s perceived financial stability on the global stage.
CONCLUSION
The May 2025 stopgap funding bill underscores a perennial constitutional and political tension: Congress’s duty to appropriate versus the executive’s obligation to ensure government continuity. While CRs serve as vital short-term remedies, they mask deeper dysfunction in budgeting processes. As Thomas E. Mann and Norman Ornstein have argued, “Our constitutional system was designed for deliberation, not perpetual emergency funding”.
Looking forward, policymakers must weigh the tradeoffs between flexibility and rigidity, considering reforms that uphold the Appropriations Clause’s spirit while preventing harmful shutdown cycles. Will Congress embrace structural innovations—such as biennial budgeting or auto-CRs—to transcend partisan brinkmanship? The answer will shape the durability of American governance in the 21st century.
For Further Reading
- The Impact and Legacy of U.S. Government Shutdowns: Navigating Fiscal Turbulence
- March Madness: Avoiding a Government Shutdown and Conferencing a Budget Resolution
- Biden signs stopgap spending bill, avoiding government shutdown
- Biden signs stopgap spending bill, preventing a government shutdown
- President Biden Signs Stopgap Spending Bill to Fund Federal Government Through March 14, 2025
