“The DoD Leahy law is similar to the State Leahy law. Since 1999, Congress included the DoD Leahy law in its annual appropriations act. The DoD Leahy law is now permanent in Section 362 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. It requires that DoD-appropriated funds may not be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a foreign security force unit if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that such unit has committed a GVHR. The law allows for two exceptions to this restriction. The first in cases where the Secretary of Defense (after consultation with the Secretary of State) determines that the government of that country has taken all necessary corrective steps. This first exception is also known as “remediation.” A second exception exists if U.S. equipment or other assistance is necessary to assist in disaster relief operations or other humanitarian or national security emergencies.”
They have also declined to do so many times on the grounds I’ve pointed out.
Not every law-related complaint is justiciable, not just anyone can have standing, and there are some things that are the exclusive powers of the other two branches. The court can no more force the President to declare Israel a terrorist state than it can force Congress to declare war.
That’s not out of the blue though. They need a basis for doing that. And this is pretty clear law. A ruling that leahy is unenforceable except by the executive themselves would be huge. And ridiculous.
The Leahy Act.
“The DoD Leahy law is similar to the State Leahy law. Since 1999, Congress included the DoD Leahy law in its annual appropriations act. The DoD Leahy law is now permanent in Section 362 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. It requires that DoD-appropriated funds may not be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a foreign security force unit if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that such unit has committed a GVHR. The law allows for two exceptions to this restriction. The first in cases where the Secretary of Defense (after consultation with the Secretary of State) determines that the government of that country has taken all necessary corrective steps. This first exception is also known as “remediation.” A second exception exists if U.S. equipment or other assistance is necessary to assist in disaster relief operations or other humanitarian or national security emergencies.”
deleted by creator
I don’t think that works. You’d still have a situation where the plaintiffs are asking the court to decide US foreign and defense policy.
No. That’s the law as passed by Congress. Either it’s enforceable or it isn’t.
It’s enforceable by Congress through their oversight and impeachment powers.
Sure. And it’s also enforceable by a court order to the DOD stating they need to comply with the law.
Except what they ask for is beyond the power of the courts to grant.
No it isn’t. Courts have forced the government to follow the law many times.
They have also declined to do so many times on the grounds I’ve pointed out.
Not every law-related complaint is justiciable, not just anyone can have standing, and there are some things that are the exclusive powers of the other two branches. The court can no more force the President to declare Israel a terrorist state than it can force Congress to declare war.
That’s not out of the blue though. They need a basis for doing that. And this is pretty clear law. A ruling that leahy is unenforceable except by the executive themselves would be huge. And ridiculous.