"I am stunned," wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the dissent.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Wednesday against the Trump administration and sided with a lower court judge’s order for the government to pay around $2 billion to US Agency for International Development (USAID) contractors. The high court rejected the Department of Justice’s emergency application and sent it back down to the lower court for further proceedings.
The one-page order stated that the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order on February 13 blocking the Trump administration from enforcing directives that pause the distribution of foreign development aid funds.
On February 25, the District Court ordered the Trump administration to issue payments for part of the paused payments, which were for work already completed before the issuance of the temporary restraining order. This amounted to around $2 billion. A deadline was issued for the Trump administration to comply of 11:59 pm on February 26, hours before which the administration filed their request to intervene with the Supreme Court.
The unsigned order stated, "The application is denied. 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 order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated."
According to NBC News, projects affected by the payment freeze included projects in African and Southeast Asian countries as well as Ukraine.
Dissenting were Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. In the dissent, Alito wrote, "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," he added.
Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments
35 days ago | Comment by: Keith
Get ready for every democrat judge in the country to try to obstruct the administration. This is an outrage.