SCOTUS rules on nearly $2 billion in frozen USAID payments

[mystery-ak]

SCOTUS rules on nearly $2 billion in frozen USAID payments
The case came about after President Donald Trump froze roughly $1.9 billion in USAID payments
By Breanne Deppisch Fox News
Published March 5, 2025 9:21am EST

ALT 1 - SIDING WITH USAID GROUPS : 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.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-rules-nearly-2-billion-frozen-usaid-payments

[rustynail]

So this how it is, Judicial Branch über alles?

[The_Reader_David]

No, but withholding payments on already completed projects is plainly a violation of standard contract law.  Federal grants are in the nature of contracts -- we give you $x you do project y -- and as such are subject to contract law, even though one of the parties is the executive branch of the Federal government.  Stiffing parties who did what they agreed to do is both legally and morally wrong, even if you and President Trump object to what they agreed to do.

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1897294182877913488

The dissenters are 100% correct!

[DefiantMassRINO]

Do not trust the Government as a business counterparty; they make the rules, they re-make the rules, and they can break their own rules with impunity.

SCOTUS upheld standard contract law by 1 vote ... not looking good for contract law.

Contracts are just words on a piece of paper.

Trump does not feel obligated to fulfill contracts made by his predecessors.  Everything is up for re-negotiation at all times for any reason.

[mystery-ak]

Steven Mazie
@stevenmazie
·
1h
BREAKING: Supreme Court DENIES President Trump‘s emergency bid to cancel nearly $2 billion in USAID spending. The vote is 5-4.

[Free Vulcan]

"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," Alito wrote. "I am stunned."

Absolutely correct.

[mystery-ak]

So much for saving 2b...unbelievable

[240B]

Steven Mazie
@stevenmazie
·
1h
BREAKING: Supreme Court DENIES President Trump‘s emergency bid to cancel nearly $2 billion in USAID spending. The vote is 5-4.

Why? This makes absolutely no sense at all? Legally or even with common sense, this ruling is absurd.
It always involves Roberts when the ruling is against America and Americans. I think someone is pulling his chain.
America is not legally allowed to NOT pay foreign countries? really?

[libertybele]

Why? This makes absolutely no sense at all? Legally or even with common sense, this ruling is absurd.
It always involves Roberts when the ruling is against America and Americans. I think someone is pulling his chain.

Roberts has been a thorn in conservatism for awhile. He rarely ruled in Trump's favor during his first administration and I don't expect him to rule in Trump's favor this time around.  Barrett continues to rule more liberal and is a complete disappointment as well.

Agreed; this ruling is absurd.

[Bigun]

Quoting a famous American; "The court has rendered it's opinion. Now let's see them enforce it".

It's that time again IMHO!

[240B]

Quoting a famous American; "The court has rendered it's opinion. Now let's see them enforce it".

It's that time again IMHO!

Exactly! Democrats proudly ignore SCOTUS all the time. It is time for Republicans to follow the trail Democrats have used frequently.

Next, SCOTUS will rule that all Americans must donate to the Red Cross. Under rule of Law!

You cannot legally force anybody to give charity. Makes no sense. If ever there was a hill to die on, this an 80/20 hill that requires Republicans to take a stand.

[Bigun]

Exactly! Democrats proudly ignore SCOTUS all the time. It is time for Republicans to follow the trail Democrats have used frequently.

Next, SCOTUS will rule that all Americans must donate to the Red Cross. Under rule of Law!

You cannot legally force anybody to give charity. Makes no sense. If ever there was a hill to die on, this an 80/20 hill that requires Republicans to take a stand.

Courts do not issue rulings! They only render opinions and if I were a member of congress today, I would be introducing legislation to do away with every federal district court in existence.

[mystery-ak]

I want to know who recommended Dem Amy Coney Barrett to Trump...?

[Bigun]

I want to know who recommended Dem Amy Coney Barrett to Trump...?

I believe she was on the Federalist short list and IIRC endorsed by Ted Cruz and others. Shame on us!

[Free Vulcan]

Why? This makes absolutely no sense at all? Legally or even with common sense, this ruling is absurd.
It always involves Roberts when the ruling is against America and Americans. I think someone is pulling his chain.
America is not legally allowed to NOT pay foreign countries? really?

It seems like Roberts will grasp at the tiniest procedural loophole to get the result he wants. I get tired of the constant hairsplitting and maneuvering. This is too big s case with wide ranging implications to play trivial games with.

[Bigun]

It seems like Roberts will grasp at the tiniest procedural loophole to get the result he wants. I get tired of the constant hairsplitting and maneuvering. This is too big s case with wide ranging implications to play trivial games with.

He (Roberts) hates Trump and Barrett follows him around like a little puppy dog.

[Smokin Joe]

Going forward, stop any future contracts. Just say no. Stop the bleeding.

[240B]

He (Roberts) hates Trump and Barrett follows him around like a little puppy dog.

Well, what he(Roberts) has effectively done is he has weakened the authority of SCOTUS.
By ruling in favor of this, Roberts has given any backwater rural Judge the same power as SCOTUS.
If any Judge anywhere can order Trump how to conduct foreign affairs, then why do we need SCOTUS?
Every Judge is now SCOTUS. Every Judge now rules American financial and foreign policy.

[Sighlass]

I want to know who recommended Dem Amy Coney Barrett to Trump...?

I have to admit, of the nominees I pushed Amy Coney Barrett as more conservative than Roberts (I thought).... My only reserve was She was Catholic (which in my opinion tend to be mushy on things). But she studied under a firm conservative and I had high hopes for her. She was the only one I actively pushed of Trump's short list. I feel cheated and dirty that I pushed her. Ugggg

[Wingnut]

How can you disperse fund when you fired all the dispersers and repurposed their office?

[Bigun]

I have to admit, of the nominees I pushed Amy Coney Barrett as more conservative than Roberts (I thought).... My only reserve was She was Catholic (which in my opinion tend to be mushy on things). But she studied under a firm conservative and I had high hopes for her. She was the only one I actively pushed of Trump's short list. I feel cheated and dirty that I pushed her. Ugggg

I know that feeling well as I campaigned with G. W. Bush in 1994 (when he was running for Governor of Texas) and voted for him twice for president. He tried to put Harriet Myers on the court when that didn't fly, went with John Roberts.

[Free Vulcan]

Well, what he(Roberts) has effectively done is he has weakened the authority of SCOTUS.
By ruling in favor of this, Roberts has given any backwater rural Judge the same power as SCOTUS.
If any Judge anywhere can order Trump how to conduct foreign affairs, then why do we need SCOTUS?
Every Judge is now SCOTUS. Every Judge now rules American financial and foreign policy.

Perfect.

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/TonySeruga/status/1897322950933799240

[mountaineer]

Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
There is more than meets the eye in this 5-4, unsigned opinion. After the March 6 hearing on the preliminary injunction, the case can be appealed to these awaiting justices. Only four are needed to grant review, so you do the math.
12:21 PM · Mar 5, 2025


More at Turley's website: https://t.co/jqsC7zkoGb