According to ProPublica, it’s commonly done using Leahy Laws:

The recommendations came from a special committee of State Department officials known as the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum. The panel, made up of Middle East and human rights experts, is named for former Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chief author of 1997 laws that requires the U.S. to cut off assistance to any foreign military or law enforcement units — from battalions of soldiers to police stations — that are credibly accused of flagrant human rights violations.

…

Over the years, hundreds of foreign units, including from Mexico, Colombia and Cambodia, have been blocked from receiving any new aid. Officials say enforcing the Leahy Laws can be a strong deterrent against human rights abuses.

https://www.propublica.org/article/israel-gaza-blinken-leahy-sanctions-human-rights-violations

Oh you mean the post summary. Yeah, that’s the article’s verbatim linked URL. Check the article’s source and see for yourself.

In any case, thanks for pointing that out. I’ve stripped the tracker link and updated the post summary portion.

Huh? That’s the exact same link as the post’s.

Wow the ads. I assumed everyone was already using some sort of ad blocker.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/7mQ8M

FWIW the most recent analysis I came across from a law professor makes me think the emergence of the “major questions doctrine” is more concerning:

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the US Supreme Court will decide whether to overrule one of its most frequently cited precedents—its 1984 opinion in Chevron v. NRDC. The decision in Loper may change the language that lawyers use in briefs and professors use in class, but is unlikely to significantly affect case outcomes involving interpretation of the statutes that agencies administer. In practice, it’s the court’s new major questions doctrine announced in 2021 that could fundamentally change how agencies operate.

…

I am much more concerned about the court’s 2021 decision to create the “major questions doctrine” and to apply it in four other cases than I am about the effects of a potential reversal of Chevron in Loper. Lower courts are beginning to rely on the major questions doctrine as the basis to overturn scores of agency decisions. That doctrine has potential to make it impossible for any agency to take any significant action.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/courts-new-chevron-analysis-likely-to-follow-one-of-these-paths

No, the case is still pending: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-451

So cool!

Good call. Thanks for letting me know.

It wasn’t me!