I think this is relevant because of the banking and coin discussions. There are remarkably few authorization protections on bank accounts.
If funds are approved by Congress, under what authority can they be removed outside of Congress approval?
The current administration and the current majority party of Congress embrace the interpretation of Article II of the Constitution to mean that the President can do whatever they want with anything under the executive branch, including FEMA and CBP.
The claims are that impoundment, the requirement for the execute branch to use the funds congress appropriated, only counts for spending money, but refusals to spend money doesn't count as impoundment. I don't believe this is valid per statue and past rulings, but that's the direction the DOJ is arguing.
So what exactly was the process here? Who the hell executed the direct revocation of congressionally-approved fundings? If people are just going to directly violate the law at the behest of the president then they should be forcibly dragged into court to explain what the hell they're doing and who told them to do it.
Unfortunately with the administrations insistence that the judicial branch has no power over the executive branch, we won't see anyone besides DOJ lawyers in court. I would love to be wrong, but it's pretty clear that this is going to go to the supreme court and given past rulings, I don't expect that the judicial system will be able to compel the executive branch anymore.