- The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reject the Trump administration's request to freeze $2 billion in USAID and State Department funds.
- Judge Amir Ali's temporary restraining order requires the federal government to pay contractors and grant recipients for work completed before Feb. 13.
- Justice Samuel Alito expressed strong dissent, arguing the District Court lacked jurisdiction and that forcing the government to pay out $2 billion represents an abuse of judicial power.
In a 5-4 ruling announced Wednesday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s request to freeze $2 billion in USAID and State Department foreign aid funds.
The decision upholds a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, which required the federal government to pay contractors and grant recipients for work completed before Feb. 13.
The foreign aid department has been under scrutiny after DOGE reports showed federal money going to non-emergency recipients, including funding DEI initiatives in other countries, per the Washington Examiner.
On his first day in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that froze funding sent to the department.
However, the ruling, which included the court’s three left-aligned judges along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, stated, “The District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order.”
Four of the court justices dissented, including Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Justice Alito writes dissenting opinion
Disagreeing with the ruling to block Trump’s request, Justice Alito argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction and that the order forcing payment is an abuse of judicial power.
Alito asked, “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.
Alito believes the order should be considered a preliminary injunction and should be subject to appeal rather than act as a temporary restraining order.
The justice added in the dissenting opinion, “As a result, the Government must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste — not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered. 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.”
Solicitor General says district judge made compliance difficult
In an emergency application, acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris said Ali gave the Trump administration around 30 hours to comply, which made any real action difficult.
The deadline “is not tailored to any actual payment deadlines associated with respondents’ invoices or drawn-down requests, or anyone else’s,” Harris wrote. “And it has thrown what should be an orderly review by the government into chaos.”
The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to vacate the District Court’s order, and the application was denied. However, the District Court is expected to clarify what obligations the government must fulfill to comply with the restraining order.