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.
It’s OK. I can certainly understand your point and I only meant my comment with a little humour and irony (as I like to do often here, lol).
You are being too soft on Amy Q and Roberts, IMO. The Commie harpies never see a fine point to support the Constitution.
I totally agree!
Judicial coup.
From the lowest to the highest levels of the judicial branch.
All way from a nothing burger local judge named Merchan to five sitting on the highest bench in the land.
It is a judicial coup, don’t you see it?
Maybe just defund the supreme court?
Yes, it’s a coup, not a disagreement over precedents. Political power seized by the unelected.
Of course then Al Green will have his grounds for impeachment - which will take about seven minutes. Trump should be patient and then if this obstruction continues, deal with it in an effective way. In the interim, he can collect legal opinions from respected legal scholars to question this aberrant ruling for a district judge to set national judicial opinion without a stay for review.
After all, insecure Speaker Mike Johnson is talking about a CR, which could just reinstate all of the waste that DOGE has truncated... the nature of warfare.
I only described the two positions that would have reasonably led to the decisions made. I didn't support or condemn either. (Although, I would be wary of arguing in defense of withholding funds for contracted work already completed, at least not without validating if the original contracts were fraudulent.)
The Commie harpies never see a fine point to support the Constitution.
Counter-example: the SCOTUS unanimously smacked down the Colorado Supreme Court when they tried to disqualify Trump from the ballot in 2024.
Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.
At issue is what the District Court labeled as a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). A TRO restrains someone from doing something. It is not an order to affirmatively take one or more actions.
A Preliminary Injunction (PI) could order someone to do something.
It is not at all clear what actions the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order.
The date for compliance with the TRO has passed. The Government is not now under any obligation to anything at any date and time certain.
What is crucially at interest here is that a TRO is not generally appealable, while a PI is appealable. It appears that what the District Court labeled a TRO to make it unappealable, contains elements of a PI which would make it appealable. Should the District Court clarify that the Government must disburse $2B, Scotus may in turn decide that it is really a PI, appealable, and proceed to entertain a Government appeal.
Should the Scotus not clarify what it is, TRO or PI, and entertain it as a a TRO, it would open itself to hearing an appeal on every TRO issued in the future. A TRO is a temporary measure to retain the status quo while a court decides whether issuance of an Injunction is appropriate. Generally, it covers a week or ten days, and the matter does not become appealable until the couurt decides whether an Injunction is apppropriate or not.
For those who prefer law without the histrionics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AruQwqyUl3E
TOTALLY OVERBLOWN! SCOTUS DOGE USAID DECISION IS FINE, ACTUALLY...20m:27s
Mar 5, 2025
SCOTUS’s DOGE order on the USAID funding should not present a problem moving forward. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses...Second Amendment scholar Mark W. Smith hosts the Four Boxes Diner 2A channel, which was named the Top Voice of the 2nd Amendment at the 2025 Gundies Awards. Mark Smith is a constitutional attorney, a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar, a professor, a frequent Fox News guest, and a New York Times bestselling author.
I posted this within a thread here: https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4302379/posts?page=47#47
Also started as its own thread thread here:
I was expecting that one counterpoint. Tossing Trump would have led to assassinations, guaranteed.
Thank you for the clarification. Have a great day.
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.