A divided Supreme Court has denied the Trump administration’s attempt to halt the distribution of nearly $2 billion in foreign aid, leaving uncertainty over when the funds will be disbursed. By a narrow margin of 5-4, the court dismissed the emergency appeal from the Republican administration and instructed U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to clarify his previous directive, which mandated the swift release of the funds for completed work.
The recent decision marks the second instance in which the new administration has unsuccessfully persuaded the conservative-majority court, including three appointees of President Donald Trump, to override a federal judge’s interruption of executive actions taken by Trump.
Despite the short-term setback for the administration, numerous nonprofit organizations and businesses that have filed lawsuits are still awaiting the funds they claim are overdue. As a result, organizations in the U.S. and globally have been forced to reduce services and lay off thousands of employees.
HIAS, one of the nonprofit organizations involved in the legal case, expressed optimism in seeing the administration held accountable but lamented the “irreparable damage” already done to their workforce, the communities they assist, and the U.S.’s international standing as a dependable partner.
Based in Maryland, the group has supported refugee-related initiatives for over a century, including providing aid to potential refugees to facilitate them remaining in their home nations.
Justice Samuel Alito led a dissent from four conservative justices, arguing that Judge Ali did not possess the authority to order the payments. In his dissent, Alito expressed his dismay at the court’s decision, suggesting it encourages “an act of judicial hubris” and imposes a substantial financial burden on American taxpayers.
Judge Ali’s temporary restraining order, which had halted the spending freeze, remains valid following the court’s decision. Ali is scheduled to conduct a hearing to discuss the possibility of a more lasting pause.
The Supreme Court’s majority commented that the administration had contested only the deadline of Ali’s initial order, a deadline that had passed the previous week.
The court advised Ali to “clarify what obligations the government must fulfill” to ensure adherence to the temporary restraining order, considering the practicality of meeting any deadlines.
Joining the three liberal justices were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, two conservatives who formed the majority. Meanwhile, Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Alito in dissent.
The Trump administration has contended that circumstances have changed, replacing a general spending freeze with targeted assessments that led to the termination of thousands of U.S. Agency for International Development contracts and State Department grants totaling almost $60 billion in aid.
The federal government implemented the aid freeze following an executive order by Trump aimed at eliminating what he deemed unnecessary programs conflicting with his foreign policy objectives.
The ensuing lawsuit alleged that this pause violated federal law and obstructed crucial life-saving programs abroad.
On February 13, Ali temporarily ordered the restoration of funding. However, nearly two weeks later, he noted the government’s lack of compliance and consequently set a deadline for releasing payment for completed work.
The administration contested Ali’s directive, characterizing it as “incredibly intrusive and profoundly erroneous” and objecting to the timeline for releasing the funds.
During an already scheduled closed-door briefing to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Pete Marocco, a Trump political appointee overseeing the dismantling of USAID, shared his “concerns” about the Supreme Court’s ruling with lawmakers. Committee Chairman Brian Mast, a Republican from Florida, recounted the discussion to reporters. Mast and the forum’s Democrats reported that Marocco did not provide a definitive response when questioned by Democrats on whether he would comply with the Supreme Court’s decision concerning the funding freeze.
