The Supreme Ct Just Greenly A $2 Billion USAID Power Grab

The Supreme Court Just Greenlit a $2 Billion USAID Power Grab

Charlton Allen

In a breathtaking act of judicial self-aggrandizement, a single district court judge seized control of $2 billion in taxpayer funds—money that the Trump administration had lawfully put on hold. Worse, a narrow 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court has inexplicably blessed this overreach, elevating the dictates of an unelected judge over the executive branch's constitutional authority—at least for now.

Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, did not mince words in his 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.

Stunned is the right word. This ruling is more than legally indefensible—it is constitutionally dangerous.

As a former public servant who has served both as a chief judicial officer and the chief executive officer of a state executive agency, I see this case from both perspectives. 

At the executive level, I was always mindful that taxpayer money was the people’s money—not my agency’s. My approach was simple: underspend where possible, maintain a high level of service and ensure a surplus.

That is not the norm in government, however. Many agencies burn through every last dollar to justify a larger budget in the next cycle.

But this ruling goes far beyond that irresponsible mindset—it kneecaps the executive branch’s ability to freeze funding and evaluate programs at the start of an administration.

A Flimsy Legal Basis

Here’s what happened: A coalition of aid organizations sued the Trump administration, claiming its temporary pause on USAID foreign assistance payments violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The case landed before Judge Amir Ali of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, an appointee of President Biden. Judge Ali issued what he styled as a temporary restraining order (TRO)—barring the administration from enforcing the funding freeze.

But that wasn’t enough. When the administration did not move fast enough for his liking, Judge Ali demanded the immediate release of $2 billion—a sum that may never be recovered.

This was not a true TRO, though. Justice Alito exposed this misnomer:

The order here, which commanded the payment of a vast sum that in all likelihood can never be fully recovered, is in no sense ‘temporary.’ Nor did the order merely ‘restrain’ the Government’s challenged action to ‘preserve the status quo.’

This was an egregious overreach that no court following constitutional principles should have allowed.

Judges are not policymakers. They are not elected—or, in this case, appointed—to dictate executive decision-making. Yet that is precisely what happened here. The judge ordered an agency that answers to the president to spend funds in direct defiance of a presidential directive.

If left unchecked, this ruling invites chaos. The executive branch makes daily business decisions about whether and when to expend funds. Now, a judge has inserted himself into that process—not just temporarily but by compelling immediate, irreversible spending.

And this isn’t even a dispute between the legislative and executive branches. It’s a group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) demanding cash—and a judge agrees.

This is rule by judicial fiat.

A Dangerous Precedent

The most egregious part of this case is the flagrant disregard for sovereign immunity—a foundational principle of federal law. Private parties cannot sue the federal government for monetary relief unless Congress explicitly waives sovereign immunity.

As Justice Alito pointed out:

Sovereign immunity bars ‘a suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the…treasury.’ But that is exactly what the District Court ordered here.

This ruling sets a dangerous precedent: Any single district judge can now force the federal government to spend taxpayer money at will—unchecked unless the appellate courts step in to restore order.

While this precedent may not be binding, rest assured that like-minded judges are watching—and taking notes. If the appellate courts fail to act, this pattern will repeat, with activist judges sidelining executive authority until they are finally brought to heel.

More....