Posted on 03/05/2025 6:49:58 AM PST by george76
The Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s order requiring the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department to immediately pay approximately $2 billion owed to contractors for work already completed.
The ruling comes after a temporary stay issued by Chief Justice John Roberts on Feb. 26, which paused a lower court’s mandate that compelled the government to disburse the funds by midnight that day. But in a 5-4 decision Wednesday, the justices denied the Trump administration’s request to vacate the lower court’s order, allowing the payments to proceed. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
...
The decision marks a legal defeat for the Trump administration’s efforts to freeze the funds as part of its broader attempt to curtail foreign aid spending, one that some sympathetic justices described as shocking.
In his dissent, Alito condemned the majority’s decision, arguing that a single district judge should not have the unchecked power to compel the federal government to disburse such a large sum of money.
He emphasized concerns over sovereign immunity and the loss of taxpayer funds, writing, “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”
The legal dispute began when the administration moved to halt USAID foreign aid payments, prompting a lawsuit from contractors and non-profits that had already completed projects and were awaiting compensation. On Feb. 13, the U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued a temporary restraining order barring the administration from freezing the funds. The court followed up with a Feb. 25 order requiring immediate payment for work performed before the restraining order was put in place.
...
The ruling underscores a broader tension between the administration’s aggressive executive actions and the judiciary’s role in checking presidential authority.
With a conservative supermajority on the high court, the decision also signals that not all justices are willing to back Trump’s expansive view of executive power in every case. The decision could have significant implications for other legal battles over the administration’s unilateral policy shifts.
I question this assertion.
If the work was indeed completed (whatever definition of that word means), then probably a tougher argument to make to not pay. Stopping disbursements before any work was done, more likely to succeed, imo.
GIRLS. ALL STUPID GIRLS! AMY CONEY BARRETT IS A DEMOCRAT!
Thanks to the POS SCOTUS, Americans have two choices. Send the sh*tholes of the world pallets of money or allow their populations to “migrate” to American and award them the American dream.
Are these girls getting USAID money?
The important thing is to stop the future payments, I can live with paying some things that were already committed to, but the cash flow stops now.
If the work was completed and the money owed, yup, we’re screwed.
But, since money is fungible, no biggie.
Take the 2 bill outta their hide somewhere else.
Consider it a “sunk cost”, but what was accomplished is the people are now aware of it, and this crap stops now, so we won’t see anymore of it in the future.
Actually, double it.
Cut 4 bill somewhere else.
To send a message. :-)
But not future payments?
She was a terrible choice.
Well, yes. Trump shouldn’t try to freeze payment for work already completed unless there is a specific complaint about non-fulfillment of the contract. If someone has a contract, he should be able to proceed in good faith on the assumption that the fedgov will honor its side of the contract.
Or maybe DOD or NASA should try not paying Space X after Musk’s company launches another satellite into orbit? That would probably clarify DOGE’s thinking.
exactly
By U.S. Code, USAID is under the direct foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State, and therefore, the President of the United States. Secretary of State Rubio previously terminated the Administrator of USAID and declared himself to be the Acting Administrator.
President Trump just has to say that the current spending is not aligned with his "foreign policy" objectives and is suspending all aid until he can issue new foreign policy guidance to USAID.
He's not obligated to spend all of the money that Congress authorized and appropriated for foreign aid if that money goes against his foreign policy initiatives.
-PJ
“The important thing is to stop the future payments, I can live with paying some things that were already committed to, but the cash flow stops now.”
BINGO
This applies only to work already completed. The Trump administration has a duty to honor prior agreements made by the U.S. government, unless something like fraud may have been committed and proven.
You have this right and it is not a huge defeat. The work was already done, yes, it should get paid for. But forbidding additional work to be done is much more defensible and the court is not addressing that in this case.
The only hope I see is the SCOTUS is, as usual, splitting hairs. This is from a different story
“The majority noted that the administration had not challenged Ali’s initial order, only the deadline”
they might be signaling they might rule differently on different grounds
Barrett was a horrible choice...
I wonder if dem Roberts is on the Epstein list?
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.