An appeal court has overturned the Trump administration’s attempt to hide the “Public Apportionment Database,” which records how the executive branch handles taxpayer funds allocated by Congress. The court’s unanimous decision on Saturday mandates that the data, previously concealed by the government, be made available online.

Judge Karen Henderson from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, alongside Judge Robert Wilkins, explained in their joint opinion that allowing the executive to delay this disclosure would undermine Congress’s financial authority. They emphasized the need for the Trump administration to release the database to the public.

Judge Bradley Garcia concurred with revealing the information by Friday but did not join Henderson’s written opinion. Henderson criticized the government for undermining Congressional power over spending and violating the constitutional separation of powers by hiding the database.

“Courts would not accept a defying response from a losing party,” Henderson stated. “No President would tolerate an outsider leading our military. Similarly, Congress shouldn’t be left waiting while the executive oversteps its complete control over funding.”

The “Public Apportionment Database” emerged partly due to Donald Trump’s Ukraine impeachment. It alleged that his administration unlawfully withheld military aid approved by Congress, contingent on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky declaring investigations into Joe Biden and his son Hunter before the 2020 election.

In March, the database was deactivated “without notice” because the administration deemed the supporting law as “unconstitutionally infringing on the executive branch’s decision-making rights.” Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan last month ordered the Trump administration to reactivate the site after a lawsuit was brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Protect Democracy group.

On July 23, the D.C. Circuit issued an administrative stay after the Department of Justice’s civil division sought an emergency halt of Sullivan’s ruling, which determined that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ran afoul of the law by removing the the database. The appellate panel noted that the administrative stay was “not to be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion,” but that in the meantime and until further notice, the lower court’s orders were on ice.

Henderson, who is the D.C. Circuit’s most senior active GOP appointee — put on the bench by George H.W. Bush — criticized the Trump administration for failing to maintain “the separation-of-powers balance struck by the Constitution,” per her opinion. She and Wilkins, a Barack Obama appointee, said this was “especially so” if the challenged statutes “keep the citizenry abreast regarding duly appropriated expenditures,” according to the filing.

“Appellees, for their part, have shown harm if a stay is entered,” Henderson said. “They will be deprived of information that the Founding generation — from Franklin to Jefferson to Madison to Mason — all thought vital to our Republic.”

Sullivan, who has previously drawn the ire of Trump supporters, had ordered the government last month to “stop violating the law!” and administratively stayed his own ruling in anticipation of the appeal. In its emergency motion for an administrative stay and a stay pending an appeal of Sullivan’s ruling, the Trump administration insisted that Sullivan “gave short shrift” to OMB Director Russ Vought’s “determinations” and “failed to appreciate” the way that the law “intrudes upon the Executive Branch’s constitutional prerogatives[.]”

Henderson noted Saturday how the government “insists” that because it is “executing” laws, the source of its power is Article II, not Article I — and thus the Congress cannot “impair” it in the performance of its “constitutional duties,” per her opinion. She wrote that the Trump administration claims public disclosure of apportionment decisions “risks intrusion into core executive powers” and that disclosure is unnecessary for the Congress to safeguard its authority because “Congress exercised its spending authority for centuries.”

Henderson said, “Our country’s history teaches otherwise.”

“Disclosure of the very information at issue here is not only a permissible exercise of legislative authority; at the Founding, it was considered a necessary exercise of that authority,” she explained. “To hear the government tell it, the separation of powers hangs in the balance and only this court can set things right. But when it comes to appropriations, our Constitution has made plain that congressional power is at its zenith. Because the executive has not made the requisite showing to support its motion for a stay pending appeal, the motion must be denied.”

Unless the Supreme Court is asked to step in or the full bench of the appeals court gets involved, the Trump administration will now have until Friday to bring the database back online for U.S. citizens to view. The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment by Law&Crime on Sunday.