According to attorney Glenn Kirschner on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated it “won’t give in” to President Donald Trump after its ruling backed a federal judge’s power to order Trump’s administration to pay nearly $2 billion to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contractors.
Newsweek has reached out to the White House via email for comment on Saturday morning.
Why It Matters
This is the latest example since Trump took office in January that the High Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has ruled against the president and other conservatives on some issues.
While there are concerns from Trump critics that the Court will go along with Trump’s actions, the Supreme Court has already shown, at least to some extent, that it is willing to side against Trump in legal challenges.
What To Know
The sharply divided Court voted 5-4 on Wednesday to reject the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) emergency application to block U.S. District Judge Amir Ali’s order setting a firm deadline for the administration to unfreeze funds.
The aid was initially blocked after Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office, pausing funding for all foreign aid programs and USAID projects that did not “fully align” with the Trump administration. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s call to end payments for foreign aid programs seconded this.
These decisions were taken to court, and Judge Ali initially issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the government’s freeze across foreign aid payments.
On February 25, following the Trump administration’s failure to comply with the TRO, as it had still frozen funds for aid organizations around the world, the administration was called to court again to explain what it was doing to fund aid organizations. It was unable to do this.
Judge Ali then gave his “minute order” ruling that the administration owed $2 billion to aid organizations for work they had already completed. This came after 12 days of the government’s failure to comply with court orders.
The government appealed this to Chief Justice Roberts, who initially put a stay on the payments. However, he and four other justices, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, ruled that the administration owes that sum of money to foreign aid groups.
Kirschner, a former assistant U.S. attorney and frequent Trump critic, spoke in a YouTube video on Wednesday about the ruling.
“Yes, this is just one Supreme Court ruling, but it is some indication that the Supreme Court, at least five justices of the Supreme Court, won’t roll over, won’t lay down, won’t give in to Donald Trump’s dictatorial aspirations. Because today the Supreme Court acted as a legitimate co-equal branch of government, a legitimate check on executive branch overreach,” Kirschner said.
The dissenting judges, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said this decision is an “extreme response.” The foreign aid groups said the government is in this position due to “an emergency of its own making.”
They also argued that not only does the Supreme Court not have jurisdiction to review district court “minute orders,” the administration only appealed the $2 billion, not the initial TRO, meaning they would still be subject to unfreezing their funds as ordered by the TRO, stating:
“The district court made clear that the February 25 order did not enlarge the scope of the government’s obligations under the TRO or its previous enforcement orders. A decision vacating the February 25 minute order therefore would not alter the government’s obligation to comply with the TRO.”
The Counsel for Global Health Council and Counsel for AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition said this case only came to the Supreme Court because the government failed to comply with lower court order rulings.
They added that without these payments, their work, which is lifesaving for millions of people, and “the existence of fellow foreign-aid partners—[would come] to the brink.”
This was the second time since Trump took office this year that the Court reined in the administration’s efforts to dramatically expand the scope of executive power.
Last month, the Court declined to grant Trump’s request to immediately fire the head of the Office of Special Counsel, saying it would not interfere with a temporary order from a lower court that temporarily left him in place.
TIERNEY L CROSS/AFP/Getty Images
What People Are Saying
Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in the dissent: “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.”
Former Senate legislative assistant Jeremy Bates in an amicus brief for the aid organizations: “President Trump asks the Court to defend what he breached. His breaches cost the United States unity, reputation, treasure, and blood. Rarely has equity ever seen a party whose hands are so unclean. The Court should deny the stay.”
What Happens Next?
The Trump administration will need to pay $2 billion to foreign aid organizations. If it fails, the administration may be held in contempt.
The majority noted that a court-ordered deadline to spend the money by February 26 had already passed, and directed Ali to “clarify what obligations the government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order.”
Ali’s temporary restraining order on the government is in place through March 10.