The sharply divided Supreme Court upended President Donald Trump’s attempt to freeze nearly $2 billion in USAID payments, leaving one justice “stunned” by the decision.
The high court ruled in favor of a lower court’s order directing the administration to pay the $1.9 billion to groups and contractors for projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The court had set a Feb. 26 deadline in an order issued by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, which SCOTUS noted had already passed as it kicked the case back in the 5-4 ruling on Wednesday.
“Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court 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,” the Court decided after Chief Justice John Roberts had paused the order last week, Fox News reported.
Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals to rule against the administration.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented with Alito expressing his shock over the majority opinion.
“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,” Alito wrote. “I am stunned.”
He added that the decision “makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.”
“The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response. A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them. I would chart a different path than the Court does today, so I must respectfully dissent,” Alito, joined by the other conservatives, wrote.
Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris said in a filing on Monday that the payment deadline was “not logistically or technically feasible” and the order itself could be a violation of the Constitution’s authority granted to the executive branch.
“Ordering the Trump administration to make payments on a timeline of the lower court’s choosing, and ‘without regard to whether the requests are legitimate, or even due yet,’ Harris said, ‘intrudes on the president’s foreign affairs powers’ and executive branch oversight when it comes to distributing foreign aid,” Harris said, according to Fox News.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs argued in their own Supreme Court filing that the administration had plenty of time to meet the deadline but “never took steps towards compliance” with the judge’s order.
