"Drawing on the British experience, the Framers “carefully separate[d] the ‘purse’ from the ‘sword’ by assigning to Congress and Congress alone the power of the purse.” Tex. Educ. Agency v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ.,
992 F.3d 350, 362 (5th Cir. 2021).8
8 As Alexander Hamilton explained, the powers of “the sword and the purse” should never be placed in either the Legislative or Executive, singly; neither one nor the other shall have both; because this would destroy that division of powers on which political liberty is founded, and would furnish one body with all the means of tyranny. But when the purse is lodged
in one branch, and the sword in another, there can be no danger."
The Framers’ reasoning was twofold. First, they viewed Congress’s ex-
clusive “power over the purse” as an indispensable
check on “the overgrown prerogatives of the other
branches of the government.” The Federalist No. 58
(J. Madison). Indeed, “the separation of purse and
sword was the Federalists’ strongest rejoinder to Anti-
Federalist fears of a tyrannical president.” JOSH
CHAFETZ, CONGRESS’S CONSTITUTION, LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERs 57 (2017).
The Framers also believed that vesting Congress
with control over fiscal matters was the best means of
ensuring transparency and accountability to the people.
See THE FEDERALIST NO. 48 (J. Madison) (“[T]he legis-
lative department alone has access to the pockets of the
people.”).9 As James Madison explained, the “power
over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most
complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the peo-
ple, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for
carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”
THE FEDERALIST NO. 58 (J. Madison).10
Market Data 
Markets 
