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.
how about simply doing ehat virtually EVERY corporation has to do to get paid...PROVE THE CONTRACT was fulfilled with the required documents. not rocket science.
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.
I should ping ChildOfThe60s who is the original poster for this article.
It's more of a balancing act than that. I suspect that the reasoning goes that the funds were authorized by Congress and were subsequently allocated by the Executive by contract. The contract was (supposedly) fulfilled and therefore payment must be made.
One can argue that the subsequent Executive found that the allocation was bogus, nothing was truly done, and therefore payment may be withheld pending an investigation, lawsuit, etc. but I doubt any of that has gone down. Thus one could argue that the basis for withholding payment doesn't exist.
IOW, it's iffy both ways depending upon one's choice of emphasis. Hence 5-4.
Bingo. I would be very upset if I contracted with the federal government, performed the work and then they rescinded the payment because of policy. It has nothing to do really with Trump.
Just treat it like most democrats treat their credit cards. Make a bare minimum payment on this ‘debt’ every month, skip a few payments, make these important ‘contractors’ send a collection agency against the .gov.
I sure hope they audit it and eventually show that it was waste,fraud and abuse, and the Supreme Court gets the Constitutional undressing of their lives for all to see.
The obliterating of the Deep State and draining of the swamp isn’t just an Executive and Legislative Branch endeavor.
The Judicial Branch is drain worthy, too.
If I hire a contract killer and he murders someone do I still have to pay? USAID was a criminal enterprise. We should not just not honor the contracts, we should arrest those who were contracted. Edf Roberts and Bryant. Two corrupt POS.
+1
btt
Many are ongoing yearly projects congress earmarked or part of USAID ‘research’ like gain of function, creating wooly mamoth mouse, Tranny support in countries who kill them.
PLEASE READ the ruling. This is for COMPLETED work.
If, for instance, a trucking company delivered 10,000 tons of food they should be paid.
All I want is an accounting/audit of whether the work was completed as contracted.
BTW, Trump should, for EVERY Judge he will appoint over the next 4 years, identify HARD LINE ACTIVIST CONSERVATIVE Judges that conservatives can run to for future rulings.
We are in a struggle to the death. We need to bring “guns” to a “knife” fight.
That is my understanding too....but the PDJT haters seem to be trying to make this a big deal, purely because it can be spun ‘Trump bad’.
If work has been completed of course you must pay the bill.
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.
This article is nothing more than hysterical nonsense. The court did not rule that the Trump administration had to disburse funds against its own policy priorities. It explicitly stated that the case involved disbursements for work that had been performed BEFORE the Trump administration canceled the contracts.
Imagine being a contractor who was hired to replace the roof of the White House ... only to have the next administration refuse to pay the bill after you had already done half the work.
For the life of me, I can't understand why the Trump administration would have gone to such great lengths to appeal a ruling in a case that they were obviously going to lose. I honestly thought the Supreme Court would issue a 9-0 ruling against the administration in this particular case.
I believe that the USA should pay for work contracted for and already performed. But I can't figure out if this order only applies to that or is the court saying these payments must continue indefinitely.
And I certainly agree with Alito's dissent: “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.”
A district court judge's decision should have boundaries that only apply to his/her district.
Another observation: Back in 2020 The State of Texas filed suit in the Supreme Court challenging the 2020 "election", but the court ruled that Texas didn't have standing. What? Texas didn't have standing to challenge something that definitely affects Texas, but Democrats can file suit in a district court and have that court's ruling affect the entire country well beyond that judge's district? Something's not right here.
And Republican Presidents should ignore the Federalist society recommendations for the USSC.
Well I thought that was the crux of the matter also but I realized its more complex than that.these circuit court judges are issuing orders way out of their jurisdiction. If anybody has the power to tell Trump to pay the $2 billion its congress. They have the constitutional power of the purse.
This case is yet another example of why you never announce what you are going to do, you just quietly go about doing it. A quiet order to Treasury to withhold the funds from each project gets the same result without giving activist lawyers a target. By announcing a high profile executive order, you create a target for their litigation. The way to kill all this spending is to inflict a death by a thousand cuts.
“We the People, while we might disagree with the spending, don’t have a right to deny them payment AFTER the fact.”
************
That’s not really the crux of the matter. More of a red herring. The real issue here is, as Justice Alito noted, “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?”
Where does this kind of power end? This is about judicial over reach, which is already (on a daily basis) obliterating the principle of separation of powers. Roberts and Barret punted on this.
You’re trying to equate a Contractor and the White House roof with foreign aid?
I mean zero disrespect but i see this comment so often here on FR.
Did biden really disregard the USSC on college loan forgiveness or did he contine to forgive the loans using a law or rule that is in the books already?
We should be as clear and honest as we can be, I dont think we make any allies by being sort of right.
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.