Supreme Court won't lift lower court order unfreezing foreign aid funds

[NYC Liberal]

Source: CBS

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to halt a lower court order that required the Trump administration to unfreeze nearly $2 billion in foreign-aid funding, clearing the way for the money to flow to groups that have done work for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development overseas.

The decision from the high court ends a pause Chief Justice John Roberts issued last week to allow the high court time to more fully consider a request from the Trump administration to intervene in the ongoing court battle over a 90-day pause on foreign assistance funds.

The chief justice issued a brief administrative last Wednesday — with a midnight deadline for foreign aid payments approaching — before the full court acted on President Trump's bid for emergency relief.

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-foreign-aid-usaid/

---

Now we will find out whether they go full fascist or not. Will they try to ignore the Supreme Court?

[Johnny2X2X]

1. Excellent

This concept should really apply to everything Musk has done too. The executive branch does not have the powers that Musk is exercising. Congress allocates funds, the President can't just fire everyone and stop spoending the money Congress allocated.

[dreamland]

14. ThIS. Is exactly how businesses operate

When they think of cost saving measures. You got bullseye.

[Lovie777]

2. Didn't shithole just thanked the chief at the fucked up speech.......

[gab13by13]

3. There is still a spark of life in the House having control of the purse.

[NYC Liberal]

4. Yes, although it's concerning that it was 5-4 and not 9-0.

[bluestarone]

9. Yes. At the very least it should have been 7/2 (HE really owns two of them, NOW 4 of them)

5/4 is scary. We can from this day on, know he owns 4 of them for sure. Hope he screams at Barrett, so she becomes his enemy.

[Jakes Progress]

25. tomas and Alito don't even pretend.

They don't give a rat's ass about the country or the constitution. It's full-on trump and project 2025 for them. As long as they get to stay rich and have rich friends, the country can burn as far as they care. Soulless, empty skin sacks.

[bluestarone]

26. Yea, how i wish we had enough congress members to finally rid ourselves of at least

Four SC Judges!

[Voltaire2]

7. The regime can ignore court orders.

Enforcement would ultimately be done by the DOJ. That is a a problem. Of course it is not clear they will do this, although it is also unclear that they aren't already doing this. In addition the actions already taken by the government deconstruction task force (DOGE) may be very difficult to reverse.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Good because if not

then throw all contract law out the window, let alone Article I Sect. 9.

[dweller]

6. I wish the writer had made that headline a little clearer

It takes a few seconds to decipher … 🤔


Cmon … it’s early




✌🏻

[Polly Hennessey]

13. Same for me.

[Hope22]

19. I thought same!

I imagine that was intentional.

[forgotmylogin]

29. It gets complicated like...

"The court lifted an order barring a previous ruling that allowed another court to delay an order which blocks the ruling of..."

[groundloop]

8. Let's not celebrate quite yet.

In CNN's article on this they say that the court didn't say WHEN the money must be released, and that tRump will be continuing this in lower courts. So it sounds like just more delay delay delay.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/05/politics/supreme-court-usaid-foreign-aid/index.html

[GoodRaisin]

23. The order reads like it is going back to the lower court to revise it's order because it's

deadline already expired. So, just to order a new deadline for the government to comply.(?)

[Prairie Gates]

10. I guess fulfilling a contractual obligation isn't the complex legal question some suggested

[riversedge]

11. "The high court split 5-4 in denying the request from the Trump administration, with Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barre

The high court split 5-4 in denying the request from the Trump administration, with Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining with the three liberal justices. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the denial.

[Deminpenn]

16. Roberts switched his vote

The original stay was 5-4 with Roberts joining the other men against the 4 women.

I know there was much consternation over ACB's appointment, but it's imho, there is hope for her. In the immunity ruling, she dissented from the part that told the judge Chutkin she couldn't consider the quo that goes along with the quid when evaluating evidence.

[onenote]

18. You are mistaken. The full court did not issue the original administrative stay.

Last edited Wed Mar 5, 2025, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to vacate the district court order unfreezing the funds. They also sought an administrative stay while that request was considered by the Court. The request for an order vacating the district court decision and for an administrative stay pending a decision was made to CJ Roberts who granted the administrative stay and referred the underlying "vacatur" request to the full Court. This was and is standard operating procedure. Requests for emergency relief can be submitted to and acted on by a single justice. Because the district court decision at issue came from the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the emergency relief request had to be submitted to him -- as the justice assigned to the DC federal courts -- in the first instance. His decision to grant the administrative stay was unsurprising, since if he had denied it, the Trump administration could then have immediately renewed their request before any of the other justices. The only time the full court considered the administration's emergency relief request was after the administrative stay was granted and the underlying request for vacatur had been fully briefed.

[bluestarone]

12. This could be interesting. What will he do, knowing how close this vote was?

He could just NOT listen to them? (this would not surprise me) Who will enforce their order?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. SCOTUS has *upheld* a lower court's order forcing USAID/State to immediately pay $2 billion owed to contractors

Link to tweet

[mahatmakanejeeves]

17. This is a wildly dangerous sign -- only five SCOTUS votes for paying congressionally mandated invoices.

Reposted by Domestic Enemy Hat

‪Garrett M. Graff‬ ‪@vermontgmg.bsky.social‬
·
1h
This is a wildly dangerous sign — the idea that there are only five SCOTUS votes for paying congressionally mandated invoices for work *already* done!? This should be as basic a test of Article I as you can get. And that does not bode well for decisions to come.

This is a wildly dangerous sign — the idea that there are only five SCOTUS votes for paying congressionally mandated invoices for work *already* done!? This should be as basic a test of Article I as you can get. And that does not bode well for decisions to come.

— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg.bsky.social) 2025-03-05T14:44:34.735Z

‪Chris Geidner‬ ‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬
·
1h
BREAKING: On a 5-4 order, SCOTUS denies DOJ’s motion to vacate Judge Ali’s State/USAID order, but notes that his prior deadline passed, so Ali is going to have to go back to the drawing board and “clarify” what the gov’t needs to do, “with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.”

BREAKING: On a 5-4 order, SCOTUS denies DOJ’s motion to vacate Judge Ali’s State/USAID order, but notes that his prior deadline passed, so Ali is going to have to go back to the drawing board and “clarify” what the gov’t needs to do, “with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.”

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2025-03-05T14:21:32.264Z

[mdbl]

21. It's the same group of assholes that gave Dump immunity from prosecution

I am surprised this went through at all.

[PortTack]

20. The court can seize bank accounts and property. Trump tower, Berkshire and marry lardo!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

22. The Associated Press isn't pulling any punches.

Divided Supreme Court rejects Trump administration’s push to rebuke judge over foreign aid freeze

The Associated Press
March 5, 2025, 10:11 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) — A sharply divided Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Trump administration push to rebuke a federal judge who imposed a quick deadline to release billions of dollars in foreign aid.

By a 5-4 vote, the court told U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to clarify his earlier order that required the Republican administration to release nearly $2 billion in aid for work that had already been done.

Although the outcome is a short-term loss for President Donald Trump’s administration, the nonprofit groups and businesses that sued are still waiting for the money they say they are owed. One of the organizations last week was forced to lay off 110 employees as a result, according to court papers.

It’s the second time the new administration has sought and failed to persuade the Supreme Court to immediately rein in a lower-court judge in legal fights over actions taken by Trump.

{snip}

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

Copyright © 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

[Eugene]

24. Alito says he's 'stunned' the Supreme Court ruled against Trump over USAID's funding

Alito says he's 'stunned' the Supreme Court ruled against Trump over USAID's funding (Business Insider)

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday sided against the Trump administration and upheld a lower court's decision to force the release of nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds.

The nation's high court ruled 5-4 in rejecting the Trump administration's request to cancel the foreign aid money from the US Agency for International Development.

Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissenting opinion, wrote that he was "stunned" by the court's decision that ultimately forces the Trump administration to pay out the billions to USAID contractors.

"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 wrote in his dissenting opinion.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alito-says-hes-stunned-supreme-150644137.html

[Bluetus]

27. They won't openly deny the Supreme Court

They will just accomplish the same thing bureaucratically. There can be any number of technically difficulties and procedural snags that keep the money from flowing.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

28. trump administration has until 11 a.m. tomrorow to tell judge how it's going to comply with order

This will be fun to watch

Link to tweet

[SKKY]

30. The fact this was a 5-4 decision shows just to what degree our Democracy is in peril.