EMERGENCY DOCKET
on Mar 5, 2025
at 9:45 am
(Trekandshoot via Shutterstock)
A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a request by the Trump administration to lift an order by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had directed the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to pay nearly $2 billion in foreign-aid reimbursements for work that has already been done.
In a brief unsigned opinion, the court noted that the Feb. 26 deadline for the government to make the payments had already passed. It instructed U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to “clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance” with the temporary restraining order that Ali has entered in the case, paying attention to how feasible it is for the government to comply with those timelines.
Ali is expected to hold a hearing on the aid groups’ motion for a preliminary injunction – which, if granted, would suspend the freeze on foreign-assistance funding going forward – on Thursday, March 6. This means that the dispute could return to the Supreme Court as an emergency appeal again soon.
Four of the court’s conservative justices would have granted the government’s request to put the order on hold. Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, described himself as “stunned” by the ruling, calling it “a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.”
The brief unsigned order came six days after Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused Ali’s Feb. 25 order, which had ordered the agencies to pay contractors and grant recipients by 11:59 p.m. on Feb. 26 for work that had already been done before he issued a Feb. 13 temporary restraining order that prohibited the State Department and USAID from suspending foreign-aid payments.
In an executive order last month, President Donald Trump ordered a halt to the distribution of foreign-aid funds so that federal agencies can ensure that those funds are only disbursed in ways that are “fully aligned with” Trump’s foreign policy. Following that order, Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered a freeze on all foreign-aid programs funded by the State Department and the USAID.
Several groups that receive or have members that receive foreign-aid funds challenged the pause in federal court in Washington, D.C. They argued that the funding freeze violated both the federal law governing administrative agencies and the Constitution.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris came to the Supreme Court on Wednesday night, asking the justices to quickly put Ali’s Feb. 25 order on hold before the deadline for the State Department and USAID to make the payments and then ultimately to lift it. She argued that Ali’s order infringed on the executive branch’s power to make decisions about foreign aid and “stands on the brink of placing USAID into a court-run receivership.” And although she agreed that the government “is committed to paying legitimate claims for work that was properly completed,” the government could not “pay arbitrarily determined demands on an arbitrary timeline of” Ali’s choosing.
A few hours later, Roberts – who handles emergency appeals from Washington, D.C. – granted Harris’s request to temporarily pause Ali’s order before the midnight deadline.
Foreign-aid recipients on Friday urged the Supreme Court to quickly lift the Roberts order. In a 21-page brief, they told the justices that “the government’s actions bring their very existence—and the existence of fellow foreign-aid partners—to the brink.” Their work, they said, “advances U.S. interests abroad and improves—and, in many cases, literally saves—the lives of millions of people across the globe.”
The foreign-aid recipients emphasized that, as a general rule, temporary restraining orders like the one Ali issued on Feb. 13 are not appealable. But the government has not even asked the Supreme Court to lift the TRO, they observed. Instead, it has asked the justices to lift Ali’s Feb. 25 order directing the government to comply with the TRO and pay for work that had already been completed – something that is even less amenable to an appeal than a TRO. Moreover, they noted, because the government has not appealed the temporary restraining order, it would still have to comply with it even if the court were to lift the Feb. 25 order.
In a one-paragraph order on Wednesday, the court emphasized that Harris’s request to lift the Feb. 25 order “does not challenge the Government’s obligation to follow” the Feb. 13 temporary restraining order.
Alito’s dissent acknowledged Ali’s “frustration with the Government,” and that the aid groups had broached “serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work.” But the court’s denial of the Trump administration’s request to lift Ali’s Feb. 25 order, he contended, “is, quite simply, too extreme a response. A federal court,” he suggested, “has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them.”
This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.