The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the Trump administration's attempt to freeze foreign aid.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied President Trump's emergency appeal to freeze almost $2 billion in foreign aid in a closely divided ruling that suggests the justices will hold his attempts to remake the government to close examination.
The court's short order was unsigned, as is the custom when the justices act on emergency petitions. It stated merely that the trial judge, who had directed the government to resume payments, "should clarify what obligations the government must fulfill.
But the decision was one of the court's initial actions in reaction to the spate of litigation brought in reaction to Mr. Trump's attempts to cut government expenditures and seize total control of the executive branch. The decision was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberal members to constitute a majority.
Even though the tone of the order was gentle, hesitant and not a little ambiguous, its upshot was that a bare majority of the court held against Mr. Trump on one of his signature ventures. The president's visions for reshaping American government, the order said, will have to contend with a court more dubious than its makeup, with six Republican appointees, might lead one to expect.
That, in itself, is also likely to cause significant rulings trying and potentially calibrating anew the separation of powers demanded by the Constitution.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., dissenting for four justices, indicated the majority had gone deeply wrong.
"Does one district-court judge who undoubtedly does not have jurisdiction possess unreviewable power to make the government of the United States pay out (and likely forever lose) two billion taxpayer dollars?" he demanded. "The answer to that must be an adamant 'No,' but the majority of this court apparently believes otherwise. I am amazed."
The order was made at the break of dawn, which is uncharacteristic where the court decides on emergency requests. The majority might have desired to prevent issuance of the order foiling Mr. Trump days before he presented his inaugural speech to the Congress after assuming the presidency in January.
The order was one sentence long, most of which spent recounting the convoluted procedural background of the case. It observed that the time for compliance with the lower court's order to disburse the funds had lapsed and that litigation would continue to wind its way through the courts. For the time being, it concluded only that the lower court must clarify its earlier order with "due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines."
The mention of the deadline for passing could be interpreted to imply the government has no immediate responsibility until the trial judge does something else. The directions to the judge to clarify what the government should do, with a consideration of what can be done, implied the case could very well go back to the Supreme Court.
But Justice Alito, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh viewed the short-term action as much more consequential.
"The government," Justice Alito penned in a scathing eight-page dissent, "must apparently pay the $2 billion pronto — not because the law demands it, but merely because a district judge so directed. As the highest court in the land, we have a responsibility to make sure that the power vested in federal judges by the Constitution is not misused. Today, the court fails to fulfill that duty."
The aid was suspended on Jan. 20, Mr. Trump's first day in office. His executive order temporarily suspended thousands of programs globally to determine if they were "fully aligned with the foreign policy of the president of the United States.
Other non-profit organizations and recipients brought two lawsuits challenging the freeze as an unconstitutional exercise of presidential authority that blocked congressional appropriations for the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The organizations stated that frozen funds have generated cascading crises, threatening lifesaving medical treatment across the globe, leaving food to spoil in warehouses, destroying businesses and risking the outbreak of disease and political instability.
One cannot overestimate the effect of that illegal course of conduct: on big and small businesses required to close down their programs and release employees; on hungry children all over the world who will be denied; on populations worldwide that will be subject to lethal disease; and on our constitutional order," attorneys for Global Health Council, a membership coalition of health organizations, wrote in one of the lawsuits.
Federal District Court Judge Amir Ali of Washington, who is a President Joseph R. Biden appointee, issued on Feb. 13 a temporary restraining order that banned administration officials from halting or suspending payments of appropriated funds under contracts that existed prior to Mr. Trump's inauguration.
He explained the administration had provided no reason for the blanket suspension of aid Congress had instructed be paid.
But the administration officials appeared to dodge rather than disobey that directive, insisting they had a right to continue to review the grants and contracts case by case and stop or approve an individual expenditure.
The plaintiffs repeatedly returned to court, requesting that Judge Ali enforce his order. On Feb. 25, he directed the officials to remit over $1.5 billion in previously finished aid work. He set the deadline for midnight the following day.
Only hours before the deadline, the Trump administration submitted an emergency filing to the Supreme Court contending that the judge exceeded his power.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., on his own, issued an "administrative stay" immediately halting the orders temporarily. These kinds of stays are temporary measures to provide the justices with some leeway while the entire court weighed the issue. Wednesday's order removed the stay.
In a Friday filing, the challengers stated in their brief that the administration erred at every turn of its legal reasoning.
"The government arrives at this court with its own created emergency," the brief continued, saying: "By compelling thousands of American companies and nonprofits to halt their work, and by stopping disbursements on work they already had done, even work already examined by the government and cleared for payment, the government caused respondents financial disruption."
Justice Alito, in his dissent, stated the administration ought not to be foiled by one judge.
"Today," he wrote, "the court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers."