The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled the Trump Administration must pay around $2 billion to U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contractors.
In a 5-4 ruling, Trump appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with Chief Justice John Roberts and the liberal wing in the majority.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
In the dissent, Alito wrote: "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 added.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued a temporary restraining order against the funding pause on Feb. 13. On Feb. 25, he issued another order instructing the government to disburse nearly $2 billion in money before the end of the next day.
In his dissent, Alito suggested the lower court could have limited the spending to $250 million, rather than the $2 billion.
“As the nation’s highest court, we have a duty to ensure that the power entrusted to federal judges by the Constitution is not abused. Today, the court fails to carry out that responsibility,” Justice Alito wrote.
According to NBC News, projects affected by the payment freeze included those in African and Southeast Asian countries as well as Ukraine.
The Supreme Court rejected the Department of Justice’s emergency application and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
The top court's unsigned one-page order states that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order on Feb. 13 blocking the Trump Administration from enforcing directives that pause the distribution of foreign development aid funds.
The high court's order states: "The application is denied. 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 order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated."
Legal scholar Jonathan Turley pointed out that the case could still emerge in the Trump Administration’s favor, since the Supreme Court’s ruling only applied to the preliminary injunction, and not the final determination:
The key here is that this was a controversial move to review a TRO, which is generally not reviewable. What is clear is that there are four justices who were still prepared to do so and would obviously be likely to grant review in the next round. That next round would come after the hearing on the preliminary injunction, which is scheduled for March 6th. It can then be appealed to these awaiting justices. Only four are needed to grant review, so you do the math.
Timely: Defund Fake News
