Carter, Civiletti, and the birth of the shutdown: America’s political gridlock explained
Shutdowns—when Washington sends hundreds of thousands of federal workers home without pay and halts many services—are now a recurring part of American politics
Highlights:
- US government shutdowns began in 1980 under President Jimmy Carter.
- Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti reinterpreted the 1884 Antideficiency Act.
- His ruling forced agencies to halt operations without funding unless essential.
- The FTC became the first agency to shut down on 1 May 1980, costing $700,000.
- Shutdowns became routine from Reagan through Clinton, Obama, and Trump eras.
To outsiders, the sight of the US government shuttering over political disputes can seem baffling.
Yet shutdowns—when Washington sends hundreds of thousands of federal workers home without pay and halts many services—are now a recurring part of American politics.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
What is less well known is that this practice only began during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, after his attorney general, Benjamin Civiletti, reinterpreted a little-known 19th-century law in 1980.
THE CARTER YEARS AND THE BIRTH OF SHUTDOWNS
Jimmy Carter entered the White House in 1977 facing a divided Congress and frequent budget standoffs. Disagreements over spending priorities, including heated disputes over federal funding for abortions, led to a series of funding lapses between 1977 and 1979.
But at that time, the government did not close. Agencies continued to function, cutting back only where necessary.
That changed under Carter's own attorney general. In 1980, Benjamin Civiletti issued a landmark series of legal opinions that transformed how Washington handled these lapses.
Drawing on the Antideficiency Act of 1884—a statute originally designed to stop agencies from overspending—Civiletti declared that agencies had no authority to operate once their funding expired, unless their work was essential to protecting life or property.
CIVILETTI'S RADICAL REINTERPRETATION
Civiletti's opinions forced agency heads into a new and stark choice: either furlough their workers or risk violating federal law. For the first time, a budget dispute did not just mean political gridlock—it meant a legal obligation to halt much of the government.
The impact was immediate. On May 1, 1980, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) became the first agency to shut down under this new rule, furloughing 1,600 employees for a day and costing the government roughly $700,000. Though brief, this episode marked the birth of the shutdown era.
FROM CARTER TO TODAY
Before Civiletti's rulings, even Carter's own earlier budget disputes did not lead to closures. But once his attorney general's opinions took hold, shutdowns became the default outcome of a funding lapse.
Ronald Reagan's presidency in the 1980s saw several more funding gaps, some treated inconsistently, but by the 1990s the precedent had hardened.
Since then, every lapse lasting more than a few hours has triggered a shutdown, from Bill Clinton's high-profile standoff with congressional Republicans in the mid-1990s to more recent shutdowns under Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
AN AMERICAN PECULIARITY WITH GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES
From an international perspective, shutdowns highlight the quirks of America's political system. In parliamentary democracies, failed budgets often trigger elections or force coalition compromises.
In Washington, by contrast, the separation of powers gives both Congress and the president leverage to hold the budget hostage without resetting the political balance.
This uniquely American standoff can ripple well beyond US borders. Shutdowns delay foreign aid, disrupt international cooperation, and inject uncertainty into global financial markets.
Yet the origin of it all traces back to 1980, when Jimmy Carter's attorney general, Benjamin Civiletti, made a dry legal interpretation that reshaped US governance. What began as a technical opinion in Carter's Justice Department has since evolved into one of the most visible—and disruptive—features of American political life.
