5-4 Ruling Upholds Lower Court Decision, Orders Clarification on Government Obligations
In a landmark decision, a divided U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected former President Donald Trump’s attempt to freeze approximately $2 billion in foreign aid payments. The court, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld a lower court’s decision requiring the administration to fulfill payments on contracts already completed through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both conservatives, joined the court’s three liberal justices in the majority. The justices directed the federal judge who initially ordered the resumption of payments to clarify the government’s specific obligations.
Justice Samuel Alito, dissenting alongside the three other conservative justices, criticized the ruling, questioning the authority of a single district court judge to compel the government to disburse such a significant amount of taxpayer money.
“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?” Alito wrote. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”
The case stems from a temporary restraining order issued last month by District Judge Amir Ali, an appointee of President Joe Biden, which prohibited the Trump administration from suspending, pausing, or otherwise preventing the release of foreign assistance funds.
Trump, who has long criticized USAID as being “run by radical lunatics,” has launched a campaign, supported by billionaire Elon Musk, to downsize or dismantle parts of the U.S. government. Musk has described USAID as a “criminal organization” that needs to be “put through the woodchipper.”
The ruling marks the Supreme Court’s first significant decision on a legal challenge involving Trump’s policies and highlights the ongoing tensions over the role of foreign aid in U.S. diplomacy. As the case moves forward, the court’s directive for clarification on payment obligations will shape how the government manages its international aid commitments.