The Supreme Court on Wednesday voted 5-4 to deny President Donald Trump’s emergency bid to avoid paying nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds for already completed work.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett were with the three Democratic appointees in the majority, while Republican-appointed Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
The divided high court action marks a significant early victory for judicial power over the new administration in the frenzied emergency litigation that has dominated Trump’s second term. But lower court litigation will continue in this case that could come back to the justices, as they grapple with how to respond to Trump’s attempts to bolster presidential power across several cases that the high court could weigh in on soon. The division in this case could be a sign of things to come.
On Feb. 26, Roberts had temporarily saved the Trump administration from having to pay out certain congressionally approved foreign aid funds owed by the government for already completed work. The administration had appealed to the Supreme Court just ahead of a payment deadline imposed by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali. Basically, the government argued that the Biden-appointed judge overstepped his bounds. Roberts’ temporary relief for the government didn’t address the merits of the case but rather pushed off a decision on whether to uphold Ali’s enforcement order.
Opposing further relief for the government, groups who rely on funding said the administration went to the Supreme Court “with an emergency of its own making.” They argued that the court doesn’t even have jurisdiction to review the Ali order at issue in the appeal, which is an order to enforce his prior temporary restraining order. “The government’s application, in this posture, amounts to a request for license to continue defying a TRO of which it has not sought review — and only days before the district court holds a hearing on fully briefed preliminary injunction motions request,” the plaintiff groups wrote Friday.
Their opposition filing also highlighted the government defendants’ lack of compliance with Ali’s directives during the litigation and the real-world impact of the freeze: “By forcing thousands of American businesses and nonprofits to suspend their work, and by halting disbursements for work that they had already performed, even work that already had been reviewed by the government and cleared for payment, the government plunged respondents into financial turmoil.” In an unsigned order on Wednesday, the Supreme Court majority noted that the federal government wasn’t challenging its obligation to follow Ali’s underlying restraining order. But the majority said that the trial judge “should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.” Writing for the four dissenters, Alito said he was “stunned” by the majority’s action. “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” Alito asked. “The answer to that question,” he wrote, “should be an emphatic ‘No.’” Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump’s legal cases.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro," a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Latest Post
Recommended
