Posted on 03/05/2025 8:25:54 AM PST by Mariner
A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration’s request to keep billions of dollars in foreign aid approved by Congress frozen.
However, the court did not immediately say when the money must be released, allowing the White House to continue to dispute the issue in lower courts.
The ruling was 5-4.
The order was unsigned but four conservative justices dissented – Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. That put five justices in the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The majority noted that given a court-ordered deadline to spend the money last week had already passed, the lower courts should “clarify what obligations the government must fulfil to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order.”
In a strongly worded dissent, Alito wrote that he was “stunned” by the court’s decision to permit the lower-court judge to order the administration to unfreeze the foreign aid at issue in the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Does anyone else have insight?
That is also what I heard.
We now know that calling it “foreign aid” is like calling Tim Walz a manly man.
You mean they already had the Gay Parade in Pakistan and want to be paid?
I heard that as well....
Which is much different then forcing the executive branch to pay for something that haven’t been provided yet.
Im sure whatever they are paying for is grossly overpriced and probably worthless, but, if the services were rendered...well....
the supreme court already ruled in Trumps first term that the president has the right to redirect funds allocated however he wishes (this was how Trump built the border wall)
So.. it seems to be the solution is simply for Trump to allocate the funds to an aid organization who simply then donates all the funds back to the US treasury.
From Julie Kelly:
https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1897301029273628728
Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
@julie_kelly2
Chief Justice Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett side with 3 libs on court in allowing a rogue Biden-appointed judge to impose a “temporary” restraining order against the Trump administration and force taxpayers to pay $2 billion in USAID disbursements in contradiction to the president’s order.
Alito in a scathing dissent: “As a result, the Government must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste—not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered. As the Nation’s highest court, we have a duty to ensure that the power entrusted to federal judges by the Constitution is not abused. Today, the Court fails to carry out that responsibility.”
I wish he would have said— “again.”
Disgraceful.
8:59 AM · Mar 5, 2025
It’s a sunk cost.
I guess Amy Barrett wants that money sent to Africa to continue destroying the genitals of African children.
Fine. Declare all recipients to be terrorist groups.
This ain’t over by a long shot.....I don’t care what the communist news network says
Agree. The court ordered that existing contracts with monies already committed must be honored. However no new contracts need be signed and if contracts resulted in fraud, prosecutions of those receiving and abusing the funds can still be prosecuted.
You’re right. It still IS a disgraceful ruling.
It reduces the Presidency to a mere intermediary between Congress and its political patronage clients. Determining foreign policy becomes the arena of the Congress and the Courts, with a payment processor organization known as “The Presidency” in the middle.
As noted here before that violates much earlier SC rulings that the President is not merely a ministerial functionary.
As a matter of contract law, if "services" have been rendered, payment should be due. Not based on politics, but on the equal application of the law. The question then would be, "proof" of services rendered, and that is exactly what I would do. Require an audit for each and every service by date and amount.
Years back, we got a bill alleging something which we did not owe, and in a simple back-and-forth and with proof on our side, it turned out the billing by some receivables' type was "overly energetic" according to "going up the ladder" with that entity's management, and we were given an apology.
Were we part of this, a simple but third-party audited "demand for proof of services rendered" would tie up much in time and expense on the part of the "provider."
This case was brought by the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition for $2 billion owed to contractors for work already completed.
I’d like to see where $2 Billion in “advocacy” went and why there is still no current AIDS vaccine, this group has been at it for 20+ years.
Their Executive Director gets a $400,000 salary.
They are also funded by the Gate Foundation.
If one party has already performed under a contract, it is a simple common law principle that the other party must perform.
Hopeful headline from Communist news network. Rulings like this keep us moving toward a showdown on the Three Co-equal Branches of the Government which will mean the USSC backing down because if they don’t their power will be washed away forever.
You are correct but it being mis-reported so expect to get hundreds of replies screaming about how the SC “betrayed” us.
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.