In a noteworthy ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States divided 5-4 against the Trump administration in a case concerning billions of dollars in foreign aid that had been frozen. While the court ruled that the funds were to be released, it stopped short of specifying a timeline for that release, essentially allowing the Trump administration to continue its disputes in lower courts.
The decision was marked by a dissent from four conservative justices: Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. The majority opinion, held by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, acknowledged that a previous court-ordered deadline for spending the frozen aid had already passed. The justices emphasized the necessity for lower courts to clarify the government’s obligations to comply with the temporary restraining order regarding these funds.
Justice Alito expressed his disbelief in his dissent, voicing concern over what he deemed an overreach of the judiciary’s power, emphasizing that a federal court should not extend its jurisdiction unjustly. Furthermore, CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck described the court’s unsigned order as modest, noting that it did not require immediate payments but did enable the lower court to take further action if necessary.
This ruling marks the second instance of the Supreme Court addressing actions taken by the Trump administration that are perceived to centralize power within the executive branch, further complicating the relationship between government branches. At the heart of the case lies a dispute over billions in foreign aid that the Trump administration froze in January, arguing it was precipitated by a need to curb spending and realign agencies with his agenda.
Nonprofit organizations reliant on this funding for global health initiatives promptly filed suit against the administration, claiming its actions disrupted congressional authority over appropriations and violated legal standards governing decision-making within federal agencies. Critically, these groups have pointed to the grave consequences of halted funds, claiming that the aid supports U.S. interests while saving lives globally and preventing potential crises from escalating.
Significantly, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali had previously mandated that much of the foreign aid should continue flowing temporarily while reviewing the case. As tension mounted, the plaintiffs alleged that the administration failed to comply with the judicial order, prompting Judge Ali to explicitly instruct the Trump administration to release the funds by a specific deadline.
In response to the ruling, the Trump administration made a swift appeal to the Supreme Court, requesting a pause on the enforcement of this ruling. It argued that it needed additional time to systematically review payment requests, demonstrating a commitment to balance compliance against operational challenges in meeting the set timeline. However, plaintiffs asserted that political appointees within the administration were obstructing the authorization process for payments.
This case highlights the broader implications of the Trump administration’s funding changes, with thousands of USAID foreign aid awards reportedly canceled and a significant portion of State Department aid also being terminated. As these funding freezes take their toll, impacted organizations continue to rally support, underscoring the need for adequate foreign aid in stabilizing global health and preventing crises from reaching American shores.