Train v. City of New York facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Train v. City of New York |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 12, 1974 Decided February 18, 1975 |
|
| Full case name | Train v. City of New York |
| Citations | 420 U.S. 35 (more)
95 S. Ct. 839; 43 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1975 U.S. LEXIS 104
|
| Prior history | City of New York v. Train, 494 F.2d 1033 (D.C. Cir. 1974); cert. granted, 416 U.S. 969 (1974). |
| Holding | |
| "The 1972 Amendments do not permit the Administrator to allot to the States under § 205(a) less than the entire amounts authorized to be appropriated by § 207. pp. 420 U. S. 42–49." [1] | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Laws applied | |
| Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 to the Clean Water Act, 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp III) (1972 Act) | |
Train v. City of New York was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1975. It was about whether the President could stop money from being spent that Congress had already approved. This is known as "impoundment."
The Court looked closely at the words of a law passed by Congress. This law was about protecting the environment and cleaning up water. The case showed how the different parts of the U.S. government, like the President and Congress, work together.
Contents
Understanding Government Spending
What Was the Case About?
In 1972, the U.S. Congress passed a law called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. This law was designed to help clean up water across the country. It set aside money to build things like sewer systems and water treatment plants in cities.
However, President Richard Nixon disagreed with how much money Congress wanted to spend. He decided to "impound" or hold back a large amount of these funds. This meant the money would not be given to the states and cities that needed it for environmental projects.
The President had actually vetoed (rejected) the law, but Congress had enough votes to override his veto. This meant the law became official anyway.
Who Was Involved?
Russell E. Train was the head of the EPA at the time. He followed the President's order to hold back the money.
Many cities, including New York City, were expecting these funds. When the money didn't arrive, they sued Russell Train. They wanted the Supreme Court to order the EPA to release all the money Congress had approved.
What Did the Supreme Court Decide?
The Supreme Court had to figure out what the 1972 law really meant. They looked at the exact words Congress used in the law. They also looked at the "legislative history," which means the records of how the law was discussed and created in Congress.
The Court decided that the law did not give the President the power to hold back these funds. They said that Congress intended for all the approved money to be spent on cleaning up water.
The Court's decision meant that the EPA administrator, Russell Train, had to give the states and cities all the money that Congress had set aside.
Why This Case Matters
This case was important because it clarified the power of the President. It showed that even if a President disagrees with a law, they must carry out the full goals of programs that Congress has funded.
The Supreme Court's ruling helped to make sure that the President cannot stop a program by simply holding back the money, especially when Congress has clearly stated its wishes. This case happened before a new law was passed in 1974 (the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act). Even without that new law, the Court showed that the President's power to impound funds was limited.
It reinforced the idea of checks and balances in the U.S. government. This system makes sure that no single branch of government becomes too powerful.
