Commentary

Experts: Suing the Government Not an Option to End Shutdown

NNPA NEWSWIRE — “What I fear is this administration and our Republican colleagues in the Senate have forgotten is that this is the people’s house,” said U.S. Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pennsylvania).

Published

6 years ago

January 20, 2019

Oakland Post

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

As the government shutdown enters an unprecedented fifth week, some are calling for drastic measures to end the stalemate that has 800,000 government employees either working without pay or altogether furloughed and unable to put food on the table.

In a recent column, Charles Ellison, a political strategist and host of the radio program, “Reality Check” on WURD Radio, said Congressional Republicans could help re-open the government by simply corralling enough votes in both the House and Senate to arrive at the two-thirds majority needed to override any Presidential veto of the federal budget.

But Congressional Republicans – led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — refuse to do that. McConnel claims that not only is he awaiting a deal between Congressional Democrats and the White House, but he also needs approval from the president before taking action.

“Which brings to mind three questions:

Why haven’t Congressional Democrats sued Congressional Republicans?
Could states do that instead?
Why are Members of Congress still getting paid?”

“I don’t know if suing will get us anywhere in any type of manner,” said Delaware County, Pennsylvania Democratic Chair Colleen Guiney.

“I’m not sure if it’s an option but Democrats in Congress have seven bills to reopen the government, but McConnell is refusing to consider any of the bills. The Senate should respect the will of the people,” Guiney said.

U.S. Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pennsylvania) said she and other Democrats have worked tirelessly to find and offer solutions to reopen the government as thousands of federal employees have gone without pay and are struggling to pay their bills and feed their families.

“What I fear is this administration and our Republican colleagues in the Senate have forgotten is that this is the people’s house,” Scanlon said. “We have an obligation to work for them. Refusing to uphold that commitment, that promise, is a slap in the face to the American people,” she said.

Former Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Alex Charlton said his guess is that if Congressional Democrats did sue Congressional Republicans it would be the “nuclear option.”

“It would significantly delay any progress towards an actual resolution,” he said.

Unlike the federal government, a state-level government shutdown in Pennsylvania is unlikely because a court decision mandates that state employees must be paid as long as the state is still collecting tax revenue, Charlton added.

“The Republican legislature has been diligent in ensuring that the state’s expenses do not outpace its revenue. Any increase beyond that would require tax increases, which the citizens of Pennsylvania do not want,” he said.

As to why federal lawmakers continue to draw a paycheck despite the shutdown, Charlton said the salaries of U.S. senators and representatives are paid by the treasury and are set by Congress itself.

“Members of Congress are paid under legislation that is separate from the appropriations bill that funds most of the government. The tax dollars that members of Congress are paid with do not come from the same budget used to pay other federal employees,” Charlton said.

Terry Madonna, a professor of Public Affairs and Director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College, said there’s no basis for a lawsuit.

“It’s a legislative function not a judiciary one,” Madonna said.

“Folks injured by the shutdown might sue but the courts would get involved in the separation of powers doctrine. That’s been in the courts now, but a federal judge refused to rule on the charge,” he said.

More pointedly, Professor Garrett Epps who’s a professor of law at the University of Baltimore, said the Constitution would not allow members of Congress to be sued for any vote or failure to vote in Congress because the Speech or Debate Clause would cover that.

“I also know that this shutdown only affects one-quarter of the federal budget so quite a few employees are still being paid like members of Congress,” Epps said.

Further, it’s Congress’ job and they make the rules so there’s no legal penalty if they don’t reopen the government, said Justin Levitt, a Constitutional law scholar and professor at Loyola Law School.

“The Constitution allows Congress to fund government, and everybody assumes that federal officials would want federal activity. But it doesn’t require Congress to fund the government,” Levitt said.

“So there’s nothing to be gained by a lawsuit. It would fail,” he said, noting that there’s currently a federal lawsuit by federal officials who aren’t getting paid, saying that it violates the 13th Amendment to force them to come to work unpaid.

However, “the courts so far have said that because those officials could quit and get another job, they don’t win either. At least so far,” Levitt said.

Also, another reason members of Congress continue to receive their pay despite the shutdown is that 75 percent of the government had already been funded prior to the shutdown, Levitt said.

“Some members have refused their salary or donated their salary, but not everybody. Ultimately, the pressure here is going to be political, rather than legal. Enough people get ticked off, and then this shutdown ends,” Levitt said.

Finally, Michael J. Gerhart who’s the Samuel Ashe Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill, said the shutdown is all governed by politics.

“That is, McConnell remains politically accountable for his decisions, just as Trump and the Democrats are politically accountable for theirs,” Gerhart said.

“McConnell has the power under Senate rules to block votes on legislative matters he does not wish to bring to a vote, and there is no legal basis on which Democrats could challenge his decision.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

OP-ED: Securing the Opportunities of American Energy

Don't Miss

Little-Known Facts about MLK

Oakland Post

2 Comments

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Published

5 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

5 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion

“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.” Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

Published

5 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Pope Leo XIV. Screenshot.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom on May 8 issued a statement congratulating Pope Leo XIV on his historic election as the first American to lead the Catholic Church.

The announcement has drawn widespread reaction from U.S. leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called the moment spiritually significant and aligned with the values of service and social justice.

In their statement, the Newsoms expressed hope that the newly elected pope would guide the Church with a focus on compassion, dignity, and care for the most vulnerable. Newsom said he and the First Partner joined others around the world in celebrating the milestone and were encouraged by the pope’s first message.

Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

“May he remind us that our better angels are not far away — they’re always within us, waiting to be heard,” he said.

Pelosi, a devout Catholic, also welcomed the pope’s election and noted his symbolic connection to earlier church leaders who championed workers’ rights and social equality.

“It is heartening that His Holiness continued the blessing that Pope Francis gave on Easter Sunday: ‘God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,’” said Pelosi.