SCOTUS Rules On Nearly $2 billion In Frozen USAID Payments

SCOTUS rules on nearly $2 billion in frozen USAID payments

Breanne Deppisch

The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied the Trump administration's request to block a lower court's order for the administration to pay nearly $2 billion in foreign aid money, delivering a near-term reprieve to international aid groups and contractors seeking payment for previously completed projects.

In a one-paragraph ruling, the Court noted that the Feb. 26 deadline imposed by the lower court had already expired, so that court must now present new instructions.

"Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines," the Court said.

Chief Justice John Roberts had agreed last Wednesday to pause a lower court’s decision requiring the Trump administration to pay by 11:59 p.m. all outstanding invoices to foreign aid groups, an amount totaling roughly $1.9 billion – a timeline the Justice Department had argued was "impossible" to comply with.   

Roberts did not give a reason for agreeing to pause the order issued by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, though the chief justice had widely been expected to refer the matter to the full court for review. 

Importantly, the pause prevented foreign aid groups from filing a motion of civil contempt against the Trump administration— a legal maneuver that employees from the affected groups said in interviews this week could have expedited their process to claw back the unpaid debt

At issue is how quickly the Trump administration needs to pay the nearly $2 billion owed to aid groups and contractors for completed projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), at a time when the administration has issued a blanket freeze on all foreign spending in the name of government "efficiency" and eliminating waste.

In a new court filing Monday, Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris said that while the plaintiffs' claims were likely "legitimate," the time U.S. District Judge Amir Ali gave them to pay the outstanding invoices was "not logistically or technically feasible."

Harris also argued Monday that the order could be a violation of executive branch authorities granted by the Constitution to an elected president.

Ordering the Trump administration to make payments on a timeline of the lower court’s choosing, and "without regard to whether the requests are legitimate, or even due yet," Harris said, "intrudes on the president’s foreign affairs powers" and executive branch oversight when it comes to distributing foreign aid.

Plaintiffs, for their part, rejected that notion in full. They argued in their own Supreme Court filing that the lower court judge had ordered the Trump administration to begin making the owed foreign aid payments more than two weeks ago – a deadline they said the government simply failed to meet, or to even take steps to meet – indicating that the administration had no plans to make good on fulfilling that request.

The Trump administration "never took steps towards compliance" with Judge Ali's order requiring the administration to unfreeze the federal funds to pay the $1.9 billion in owed project payments, attorneys for plaintiffs argued in their own Supreme Court filing. 

They also rejected the administration's assertion in court last week that it would need "multiple weeks" to restart the payment system.

Rather, they said, the Trump administration had moved too quickly to dismantle the systems required to send payments to foreign aid groups in the first place— and to purge the many USAID staffers who could have facilitated a smoother, faster repayment process.

"All of these invoices have already been approved by the front-line managers at USAID, and it's really these payment bottlenecks that the government has itself created" that have caused the problems with repayment, one individual with knowledge of the USAID payments and contractors affected told Fox News Digital in an interview.

More...

"I Am Stunned" - SCOTUS Dissenters Rage As 'Liberals' Unfreeze $2BN USAID Foreign-Aid Payments

TYLER DURDEN

In a 5-4 vote, The US Supreme Court refused to bolster President Donald Trump’s foreign-aid freeze, reinstating a lower court order that requires the quick disbursement of as much as $2 billion owed to contractors for already completed work.

Over four dissents, the justices rejected Trump’s request to toss out the trial court order, which affects money owed by the US Agency for International Development and State Department. 

The dissent by Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh was extremely strongly worded:

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.

Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers. 

The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response. 

A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. 

Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them. 

I would chart a different path than the Court does today, so I must respectfully dissent.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Barrett sided with the liberal members of the court.  

The majority told the trial judge to reset the deadlines for paying the money since his original deadline has now passed.

Key Takeaways

• The ruling forces immediate payment of $2 billion for completed work but does not prevent broader USAID cuts.

• Future freezes and funding pauses are still possible but may face legal challenges under the APA.

• The ruling does not permanently restore funding, but it creates a legal pathway for future lawsuits if the Government halts disbursements unlawfully.

• Trump’s broader foreign aid policy remains largely intact, though judicial pushback may limit some of its implementation.

We cannot wait to see how Musk and Trump respond to this farcical outcome...