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.
There is nothing wrong with this. It solves a Constitution power struggle. If Congress does not agree, they can impeach and remove Trump. If they do, then the court gets a well deserved pimp slap.
The DOGE boys found where the money was going; they can find where the money is coming back.
How else are congresscritters getting rich on a ~160k/year salary?
Based on the decision, I imagine the 5 Justices who voted to decline the application did so not only because of the fact it would be payments for work already completed, but also because the the government "has not even asked the Supreme Court to lift the TRO [Temporary Restraining Order]...Instead, [the government] has asked the justices to lift Ali’s Feb. 25 order directing the government to comply with the TRO and pay for work that had already been completed – something that is even less amenable to an appeal than a TRO."
Unfortunately, as of this time, the decision to deny the application had no supporting rationale included to elaborate on the majority's opinion.
The 4 dissenting Justices, meanwhile, focused moreso on jurisdiction and due process regarding the District Court's restraining order, as well as the appropriateness of such a response.
Different perspectives of the same issue.
And find out how much money went back to the congresscritters (and others outside the destination), and how much went to its original purpose/destination.
It makes sense that basic contract law should apply. after receiving proof the work has been done, then send the money. He may think it was a lousy contract, but such is life.
BuckeyePaul33 wrote:
“
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.
“
Does rescission play a part in this scheme?
Nicely written. Execute basic contract law and don’t let anything like that be written again.
F*cking A! Like our former President Jackson said, The last time I looked the Supreme Court doesn’t have an army. (Paraphased)
If funds were being diverted to places/people other than where/whom they were intended, then that is fraud.
What happens to the diverted funds?
How do we know there even was any work and not hust shoveling cash out the door?
That’s what a member of Biden’s USAID said they were doing in the last two months, “..literally throwing gold bars off the Titanic!”.........
Trump should make a few phone calls…
Excellent point, You raise a very significant question that has been mostly if not entirely overlooked. There was a shell game going that clearly points to something nefarious that gets to the heart of a major “laundering” operation.
No, ignoring the Const is what BeijingBiden did.
RoevWade was a bad ruling. If this was also then file a case and crank it back to SCOTUS.
If there are no measurable or observable results included in the document, then a contract has not been created, and cannot be executed, and they don't get the money.
I agree with the decenters when it comes to specifying 36-hours. That is hideous and he should not comply. He needs to protect the Executive Branch.
It is not clear that any work was performed.
Let's audit those invoices before paying them.
What completed work?
Most of these supposed contracts are slush fund grants used to pay for anything the cronies want. Just charge it all to "Miscellaneous Expense".
Show proof of work to justify an invoice. It does not even need to be "completed work".
No proof of work? No payments. Bring on the Auditors.
No invoice? No payments.
Stop all current or future activities as of notification date. No payments for them.
Almost all Federal contracts include a "Cancellation for Convenience" clause. The Courts have nothing they can lawfully order to prevent that. Not that it seems to prevent the Courts from issuing lawless orders.
Defining the court would be the Democrats’ reason to impeach Trump when they come into power.
I agree. Services rendered ... payment due. However, a simple DOGE audit of the contract and services to see if the services satisfied the previous contract is within reason. I think this was over-reach, possibly by Musk and team, and Trump shutting down USAID.
And yes, I've dealt with service contracts many times. Once performed to the specifications of the contract and to my satisfaction, I paid. A couple times I had the contractor come back for minor corrections. No problems due to their competitive nature and reputation in their industry.
p
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.