In a 5-4 emergency ruling on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to halt a lower court’s decision ordering the Trump administration to immediately release nearly $2 billion in foreign aid payments owed under existing contracts. The ruling marks a significant legal setback for the administration, which has aggressively sought to reshape federal spending, including efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
A Divided Court
The decision saw Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett break ranks with their conservative colleagues, joining the court’s three liberal justices to form the majority. Meanwhile, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, sharply criticizing the ruling.
Justice Alito, writing for the dissent, expressed outrage at what he saw as an overreach by the lower court.
“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? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned,” he wrote, joined by the three other conservative justices.
A Clash Over Foreign Aid
At the heart of the case is the Trump administration’s broader effort to freeze and restructure USAID, including terminating contracts, firing employees, and halting payments to foreign aid contractors. The administration’s actions have triggered multiple lawsuits, with USAID contractors warning that without access to the funds, they would be forced to shut down operations.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, an appointee of former President Biden, previously ruled that the administration was unlawfully withholding the aid. Last week, Ali escalated the dispute by ordering the Trump administration to release the funds immediately, setting a midnight deadline.
In response, the Justice Department urgently appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that compliance within such a short timeframe was unrealistic.
“The Executive Branch takes seriously its constitutional duty to comply with the orders of Article III courts,” the Justice Department wrote in its emergency filing. “The government is undertaking substantial efforts to review payment requests and release payments. Officials at the highest levels of government are engaged on this matter.”
Chief Justice Roberts initially granted a temporary delay to allow the court to consider the matter, but after reviewing arguments from both sides, the majority ultimately rejected the administration’s request, allowing the lower court’s order to stand.
What Happens Next?
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Trump administration must now proceed with the release of the frozen funds. However, the administration is likely to continue contesting the lower court’s decision in ongoing litigation.
The Supreme Court’s unsigned order did not address the broader legal merits of the case but emphasized that since the deadline had already passed, the district court should clarify how the government can ensure compliance with its ruling.
For USAID contractors, the ruling provides a temporary reprieve. Their attorneys argued that the government’s refusal to release the funds was a manufactured crisis and urged the justices to reject the administration’s emergency request.
“The government comes to this Court with an emergency of its own making,” they wrote.
As the legal battle over foreign aid and executive spending power continues, this case highlights the ongoing struggle between the judiciary and the Trump administration over the limits of presidential authority. The decision underscores that even in an era of deep political division, the Supreme Court remains a crucial check on executive power.
.jpeg)
