SCOTUS rules on nearly $2 billion in frozen USAID payments

[mystery-ak]

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

Sounds promising...

[mountaineer]

Martin J Sweet
@MartinJSweet
Beware media reports of SCOTUS ruling on @StateDept
 spending. The "decision" by SCOTUS is an opinion related to a temporary order, not full Court opinion. No majority written opinion. Scope only related to spending for past activity, not future spending. No decision on merits.
9:36 AM · Mar 5, 2025


Martin J Sweet
@MartinJSweet
Given SCOTUS’s recent skepticism of the scope of the APA, and the particular nature of the District Court Judge’s ruling (see Alito dissent in this opinion) - there are many reasons to think that the Trump Administration will win this case as it plays out.
12:11 PM · Mar 5, 2025

 

[verga]

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

We are in exactly the same boat. The only difference is that I liked her because she is Catholic (Feinstein hated her because of it) .

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Cannot the President declare to fulfill that contract causes him to spend above the legal debt limit in place now?

He decides what can be paid below it, so the rest is above it and against the law, doesn't he?

Let's play the Dem game to the fullest.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Without contracts, contract law, and contract law enforcement, the exchange of good and services in our capitalist economy, based upon good faith and full credit of both counterparties , would cease.

The trust that is the backbone of our Economy and Government would cease.  Producers and sellers would have to demand full payment upfront in cash.  Credit would no longer exist or would seize.

What's the value of a promissory note if a counterparty cannot trust the underlying "promise" of future payment contained within that note? 

Accounts payable and account receiveable would be worthless or steeply discounted, significantly reducing the GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) value of enterprises.  It would be mark-to-market deflationary death spiral hell, much like the 2008/2009 Financial Crisis.

A system that relies on trust cannot function without trust (contracts, contract enforcement).

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Without contracts, contract law, and contract law enforcement, the exchange of good and services in our capitalist economy, based upon good faith and full credit of both counterparties , would cease.

The trust that is the backbone of our Economy and Government would cease.  Producers and sellers would have to demand full payment upfront in cash.  Credit would no longer exist or would seize.

What's the value of a promissory note if a counterparty cannot trust the underlying "promise" of future payment contained within that note? 

Accounts payable and account receiveable would be worthless or steeply discounted, significantly reducing the GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) value of enterprises.  It would be mark-to-market deflationary death spiral hell, much like the 2008/2009 Financial Crisis.

A system that relies on trust cannot function without trust (contracts, contract enforcement).

All well and good, but are we certain the funding that has been cut are actually in the form of a 'contract' as you define?

I give to a church, and to other charities, so does that constitute a 'contract' I must be forced to continue paying?

Until there is more certainty here on what is exactly the subject of contention, it may not be appropriate to categorically indicate this is that same form of 'contract'

As an example, this is lifted from article:

The high court challenge comes as many of the foreign aid groups who sued the administration earlier this year have already been stripped of the bulk of their funding. This aligns with President Donald Trump's stated plans to cut some 90% of USAID foreign aid contracts and to slash an additional $60 billion in foreign aid spending.

This language is not precise enough to say it is what you are saying a 'contract' is.

What if a NGO was under 'contract' to provide certain services for a bunch of illegals to fly into this country, as Biden was doing? What if Biden had signed up to fly a million illegals into the country as part of this 'contract' before he stepped aside? 

Would you consider it appropriate to honor this 'contract' for services in order to preserve the sancitity of contract law?

[DCPatriot]

Just as only Eunuchs were allowed to guard the Sheik's harem...only people with no family should be allowed on the SCOTUS.

This blackmail/extortion must be "...nipped in the bud". /S

[Fishrrman]

Patriot proposes:
"Just as only Eunuchs were allowed to guard the Sheik's harem...only people with no family should be allowed on the SCOTUS..."

No.
Only white males should be considered for the position.
Preferably late 40s-early 50s who have shown their absolute regard for "the right" of things legal.

Sorry if you don't like this post.

[DefiantMassRINO]

I give to a church, and to other charities, so does that constitute a 'contract' I must be forced to continue paying?

Giving away money without the expectation of anything in return is different than the Federal Goverment contracting with an NGO to exchange Government money for the service prodivded by the NGO.  If a service has been rendered to the satisfaction of the contract, payment is due as specified by the contract.

To place a freeze to review the procurement and contract for services provided by NGO's is different.  If the i's are not dotted, and the t's are not crossed, the Government could refuse payment on the basis of improper procurement, improper contract, failure to meet the contract's specifications, or there was a violation of documented, superseding laws, regulations, rules, procedures and policies.

Now, witholding payment, subject to a succesful audit of the program or project for which the NGO was contracted, is legal but the creditor may be required or sued to provide interest and damages, if there are any.

Void the contract, if it is verifiably invalid, to legally deny, delay, or withhold due payments.

Illegal contracts cannot be enforced.

In the end, it's Congress's fault for allocating large sums without stricter conditions, controls, and accountability.

Congress, if you do not want to spend money, stop writing the checks and the IOU's.  This is why the Budget is so damned important.

Congress, get off your lazy, wimpy rumps and pass a damned budget that better safeguards taxpayers' funds.

If you just start making stuff up on the fly, the trust and faith on which the Government and the Economy function, will cause both to collapse - aka Anarchy, The Purge, or a Depression.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I give to a church, and to other charities, so does that constitute a 'contract' I must be forced to continue paying?

Giving away money without the expectation of anything in return is different than the Federal Goverment contracting with an NGO to exchange Government money for the service prodivded by the NGO.  If a service has been rendered to the satisfaction of the contract, payment is due as specified by the contract.

To place a freeze to review the procurement and contract for services provided by NGO's is different.  If the i's are not dotted, and the t's are not crossed, the Government could refuse payment on the basis of improper procurement, improper contract, failure to meet the contract's specifications, or there was a violation of documented, superseding laws, regulations, rules, procedures and policies.

Now, witholding payment, subject to a succesful audit of the program or project for which the NGO was contracted, is legal but the creditor may be required or sued to provide interest and damages, if there are any.

Void the contract, if it is verifiably invalid, to legally deny, delay, or withhold due payments.

Illegal contracts cannot be enforced.

In the end, it's Congress's fault for allocating large sums without stricter conditions, controls, and accountability.

Congress, if you do not want to spend money, stop writing the checks and the IOU's.  This is why the Budget is so damned important.

Congress, get off your lazy, wimpy rumps and pass a damned budget that better safeguards taxpayers' funds.

If you just start making stuff up on the fly, the trust and faith on which the Government and the Economy function, will cause both to collapse - aka Anarchy, The Purge, or a Depression.

and that's the point, we do not know enough about these 'contracts' to know whether they are as you describe

They may be simply the government decided to give to, say the Red Cross to provide relief efforts for Gazans, and not an executable contract at all.

[Smokin Joe]

How do we know whether funds/services were going where they allegedly were supposed to go?

[Bigun]

Great info here!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8G_Xuq9_iI