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.
If true, why did the five dimwit judges understand this, while the most brilliant among them did not?I call BS. Maybe Amy Q Barrett doesn’t know what a woman is either? She voted with this screwball Brown! 😵💫
President Trump should not ignore the Supreme Court’s decision. There is a constitutional remedy, which can be accomplished since the Republicans control Congress. Article III, section 2 provides that Congress can make Exceptions as to the jurisdiction of federal courts. Pass legislation which removes jurisdiction for federal courts to compel the President to pay out taxpayer dollars.
My guess is because Deep Staters Bill and Melinda Gates are funders of one of the foreign aid advocacy groups that sued.
AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition have their fingerprints..
I wasn't aware that some government contracts are more valid than others.
The usual error of law-abiding conservatives. They force you to “play by the rules” and so you do. Then they force you to play by their interpretation of the rules.
Having infiltrated the law schools long ago, the courts and the left have long distorted the power of the judiciary to perform legal review into the power to order whatever the courts want.
I remember many years ago when courts ordered local school districts to increase taxation to fund court ordered integration efforts like bussing. How is that not taxation without representation?
When courts infringe on the core elements of executive or military authority such as hiring & firing, they have no power to order the executive to do anything.
This doesn't mean the President can do anything he wants. It means the issue becomes a political question to be decided either by impeachment or an election. The decision ultimately lies with the American people, not with the courts. There is no notion of judicial supremacy in the Constitution.
What Congress can and should do is limit the ability of district courts to issue national injunctions against the federal government. No national injunction issued by a district court is valid until it has been affirmed by the relevant Circuit Court. And if a federal Circuit court does affirm a national injunction, the federal government as a matter of Right gets expedited appeal to the Supreme Court.
The best time to pass legislation like that is shortly before an election. When neither side knows for certain who will control the presidency. That may be the one time you can get bipartisan agreement to pass it.
We’ve had about a month and a half of time to see how ridiculous some of this foreign aid has been, and since we have Bill and Melinda Gates fingerprints on this particular lawsuit, maybe we’ll get a good audit of any work that was actually performed.
Remarkable a foundation with Bill and Melinda Gates money backing needs US tax payer money, and not use their own but hey, that’s how the waste,fraud and abuse might get uncovered eventually, and how the game has been played.
Where does this kind of power end?
I don’t think the Executive should have the power to make a contract, have the contract fulfilled, and deny payment either. Maybe that’s were it ends. I don’t like the Judicial overreach, but on the side of contracting for the Federal Government, if you can be cheated by an incoming administration who is going to sign on for a contract?
We should cancel ‘upcoming’ contracts, or ‘cancel’ further contracts, but we should pay for completed work.
So, do you think that puppet Amy Quisling Barret and her master may have been bought?
If I didn’t know any better,I’d say it is going exactly as planned by the Trump Administration.
He declared he caught the swamp in his first term.
How many swamp critters are in the Supreme Court or any of the courts?
I suspect Bill Gates and Melinda Gates and their foundation and meddling, may be as bad as Soros or Clintons and as neck deep in all the ills of the world using taxpayer money.
And only way to show it all is to let it all come to light..
Trump’s people should have an audit performed on each recipient of the funds. Question if the work was actually legally authorized. If so, make them prove that the work they are billing for was actually done. If they have honest accounting methods, the proof can be quickly provided.
Btw, how fast did these ‘courts’ work to remedy this?
Remarkably fast.
See, the courts can work really fast in Swampland when they want to..
Other times, drag, drag, drag....
It is coming back to the SCOTUS and that is when you realize the excitement was for nothing. In a few months, it will be very clear how much power the POTUS has over the Executive Branch.
You’re looking at this backwards. It’s really about lower level judges (many with political axes to grind) encroaching into executive powers. This is extreme judicial overreach.
I have no problem with contractors getting paid for legitimately documented work they performed, even if we perceive the work to be of a questionable or dubious nature. As a matter of fact, payments to government contractors are denied or withheld from time to time for various reasons. This is not all that unusual.
The point is the Court had an opportunity to clarify both issues, and obviously could have based on the dissenting views of other justices, but Roberts and Barrett avoided doing that unfortunately.
I agree with that.
IIRC Bidumb had to pay for the Keystone Pipeline, even though he canceled the project.
Contracts are a bitch sometimes.
From what I’ve read, the payments (or retention of payments due to claims of fraud or malfeasance by the contractors) should be based on the terms of the contract, not on some highly questionable application of Executive Branch authority.
I suspect the likes of Bill and Melinda Gates will eventually get DOGEd out of Federal US Taxpayer money.
And probably same goes for many Deep Staters using the US taxpayer like a piggy bank..
Cut the pricks funding!
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.