Posted on 03/07/2025 6:25:52 AM PST by Red Badger
The Supreme Court’s ruling is not just a setback for President Trump’s agenda, it threatens the constitutional balance of power.
On March 5 in a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a lower-court order compelling the Trump administration to disburse nearly $2 billion in foreign subsidies through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department. This ruling forces the executive branch to pay out taxpayer funds against its policy priorities. It is not just a setback for President Trump’s “America First” agenda, it’s a glaring example of judicial overreach that threatens the constitutional balance of power.
The Supreme Court’s majority has effectively handed a single district judge the unchecked authority to dictate executive action, a move that undermines the separation of powers doctrine at the heart of our government. President Trump should consider ignoring this order, as it represents an unconstitutional encroachment on his rightful authority.
Let’s start with the district court judges who set this debacle in motion. Presiding over a challenge to Trump’s 90-day foreign aid pause, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued an order that exemplifies judicial hubris. On Feb. 13, he temporarily blocked the administration’s funding freeze, claiming it violated federal law.
When the administration didn’t comply fast enough, Ali doubled down on Feb. 25, mandating immediate payment of $2 billion for work completed before his initial ruling — all with a deadline of less than 36 hours. This wasn’t adjudication; it was a power grab. A single judge, with no apparent regard for the complexity of federal disbursements or the executive’s prerogative, assumed the role of both legislator and treasurer.
Such actions are not isolated. Across the country, district judges have issued nationwide injunctions to halt Trump’s policies, from birthright citizenship reforms to federal workforce cuts, often with little justification beyond their private policy preferences. These judges aren’t applying law; they’re rewriting it.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh in dissent, saw through this charade. His words cut to the core of the issue: “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.”
Alito’s dissent exposes the absurdity of the majority’s position: the government “must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste — not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered.” This isn’t justice; it’s judicial fiat. Alito rightly warns that the Supreme Court has a duty to ensure federal judges don’t abuse their power — a duty the majority has failed to uphold.
The separation of powers doctrine enshrined in the Constitution assigns distinct roles to each branch of government. The executive, led by the president, has broad authority over foreign affairs and the execution of federal funds, especially when Congress has not explicitly mandated their disbursement. Trump’s foreign aid pause, enacted on his first day back in office, was a legitimate exercise of that authority, aimed at reevaluating programs he deemed wasteful.
Yet the Supreme Court’s decision allows the judiciary to override this discretion, effectively seizing control of the purse strings — a power reserved for Congress and the executive. In joining the leftist justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett have tipped the scales toward judicial supremacy, blurring the lines between the branches and weakening the presidency.
President Trump should seriously consider defying this order. History offers precedent: Andrew Jackson famously ignored the Supreme Court’s 1832 ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, declaring, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Jackson’s stance was controversial, but it underscored a truth: the Supreme Court has no army, no purse, no means to enforce its will beyond the executive’s cooperation.
If Trump refuses to pay, he’d be asserting the executive’s constitutional primacy over foreign policy and federal spending, forcing a reckoning on the judiciary’s overreach. The risks — legal challenges, political backlash, Democrats later making the same play — are real, but so is the cost of compliance: a precedent that emboldens activist judges to micromanage the executive at every turn.
Critics will cry “rule of law,” but what law demands $2 billion be paid “posthaste” without due process or legislative clarity? The Administrative Procedure Act cited by Judge Ali doesn’t grant judges carte blanche to issue billion-dollar edicts. Aid groups argue the freeze caused harm, but their remedy lies with Congress, not the courts. The Supreme Court’s failure to check this abuse sets a dangerous stage for future administrations — Republican or Democrat — to be hamstrung by unelected judges wielding unchecked power.
The $2 billion order isn’t just about foreign aid; it’s about who governs. The judiciary has crossed a line, and the executive must push back. Trump should stand firm, not out of defiance, but to defend the Constitution. As Alito warned, the Supreme Court’s misstep “imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers” and rewards “an act of judicial hubris.” It’s time to reject that hubris and restore the balance of power.
Curtis Hill is the former attorney general of Indiana.
I thought this was 2 billion dollars for work that had already been performed. That makes this no big deal. Of course work that has already been performed gets paid for.
Well, the Democrats certainly started this idea of ignoring the Supreme Court, didn’t they?
This is also about sending money out of the country where the money trail can’t be audited by the U.S. government. A lot of this money has been leaving the U.S. and then returning to the right people. Trump has every right to refuse to comply with this order.
Andy Jackson (D) TN..................
No he shouldn’t ignore the SCOTUS. This is not the way to do things.
The ruling about the 2.1 billion in USAID money isn’t what the media is saying. The money was already owned to Contractors that had completed the work (or so they say). Now, they may have done nothing of importance and billed the government, but the point is they did the job that they were contracted for. We the People, while we might disagree with the spending, don’t have a right to deny them payment AFTER the fact.
For the record, and for those that are going to disagree: I don’t support what Biden did. I think USAID was a treasury theft process for Democrats and their supporters. I think that USAID employees that authorized non-sense projects should be unemployed and investigated for conflicts. I think that the Democrats entire ‘war chests’ of political money was dependent upon schemes like USAID and ACT Blue (formerly ACORN) to undermine the citizens of the US. That being said, we should pay the bills for the services that were completed and LEARN FROM THIS.
Why not? Biden did.
Sounds like Amy Q Barrett and Johnny Roberts are corrupt and on the take.
interesting. “a three legged stool with one leg standing, one leg folding and one leg broken while each leg is determining the condition of the other two is not what the Founders quite envisioned” L.Star
Trump should treat them like the DOGE post - refuse to respond to the 5 bullets and we will take that as your resignation. Don’t take up and address key cases on their merits and I will take that as your resignation, move you out of your office, and nomnate a successor for confirmation by the Senate.
It’s called doing your effin job.
I thought this was 2 billion dollars for work that had already been performed.
.....
Let’s hope they showed their work
/s
3xactly. Pres Trump gets to cut any further funding once the co tracts have been “honored” legally. Although I think the pr3sident should. Have discretion to stop funding before they are honored IF fraud was taking place. American taxpayers should not be on the hook for funding fraud and abuse imo, no more than we should be on the hook for paying for murder of unborn children, and trannie surgeries and tampons in men’s bathrooms etc etc etc. But, apparently no one in the conserva4ive party feels strongly enough to try to put a stop to the fraud and waste. Until doge that is.
On top of that, it won't accomplish anything. There will be a lot of people in the federal government, even some of his own appointees, who will refuse to defy Supreme Court orders.
I agree. It appears to me that a pretty good number of the DNC owned Feral judges were in on the planning to bring down Trump and Doge. It’s gonna be government fraud, waste and abuse all the time as usual. Screw the U.S. taxpayers. The far-left’s next big gig will be to completely reopen the border and to pay the bastards “reparations” for what DOGE and the American taxpayers did to them on their Trail of Tears better life pickup ride “journey” to the Limited Edition, better life, “American Dream.”
Barret has turn into a Roberts big government backer
I agree with you Pete. to ignore SCOTUS is to go down a very slippery slope which is almost unrecoverable. However, every legal means should be used.
There was a very good article posted here yesterday purporting to give insight to what the court did in this, and it is actually better than it appears. In my understanding, the USSC sent it back to the judge and said, try again.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/little-red-hens-thursday-march-6
I agree completely .
“I thought this was 2 billion dollars for work that had already been performed.”
Exactly right. Author Curtis Hill clearly does not understand that. If the “work” was performed under a valid government contract, then pay them.
But give all of the recipients an anal exam audit the likes of which they’ve never seen before. Look for strict compliance with the Scope of Work. Make sure the work was performed during the Period of Performance. Make sure the recipient has complied with all the onerous government reporting requirements to the smallest jot and tittle. Do the same for any and all subcontractors.
I’d wager such audits would turn up lots of “irregularities” and we could get a lot of money back. Threaten tough legal action for any and all “irregularities.”
USAID) is audited primarily by its Office of Inspector General. The last thing we need is the fox auditing the henhouse. President Trump should get DOGE to lead the audit and DOGE should bring in a big name external auditor with no ties to the government. Put them under the microscope and through the wringer.
No, he didn't.
The Supreme Court decisions he supposedly defied were comparatively narrow, outlawing only the specific loan forgiveness programs Biden tried to initiate. When one was barred by the Supreme Court, they'd put together a different program, using different legal justifications and code sections as authority, and try to get that one through. But once a particular program was shut down, Biden did not defy that specific ruling.
That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but legally, there is a huge difference. And the bottom line is that massive loan forgiveness never did happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.