Supreme Court derails Trump admin’s freeze on $2B in foreign aid, sides with lower court

The Supreme Court delivered an early victory Wednesday to President Trump’s opponents, ruling that a federal judge can order the administration to pay nearly $2 billion in foreign assistance money the White House had put on hold.

The justices, in a 5-4 order, said the money is reimbursement for work already completed but had been blocked by Mr. Trump’s spending pause.

The court’s ruling clears the way for the money to flow — but the justices did caution the lower court judge to be mindful of the “feasibility” of its deadlines.

The ruling drew a sharp denunciation from Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who said it gave a single district court judge “unchecked power” to compel the government to pay out “and probably lose forever”  billions of dollars.

“I am stunned,” he wrote in a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

The case arose following a Jan. 20 executive order that called for a large freeze of foreign assistance money from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Mr. Trump said he wanted to conduct a review to ensure the money aligned with his goals.

Global health and AIDS groups said they are in “financial turmoil” over the administration’s pause on foreign assistance spending and some of them need the money to keep operating.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued a temporary restraining order against the funding pause on Feb. 13.

On Feb. 25, he issued another order instructing the government to disburse nearly $2 billion in money before the end of the next day.

The administration appealed the ruling and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. put the ruling on hold to give the court a chance to look at the issue.

Chief Justice Roberts joined the majority in Wednesday’s ruling.

The Trump administration had argued Judge Ali’s ruling was an unprecedented breach of government powers, unconditionally ordering spending that could include fraudulent claims, and on a timeline that was impossible to meet.

The Supreme Court majority, in its unsigned order, did acknowledge that latter concern.

“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 read.

The case is one of several challenges to Mr. Trump’s aggressive agenda winding its way to the high court.

The justices previously demurred on a request to get involved in a challenge to Mr. Trump’s firing of the U.S. special counsel, a watchdog for federal employees. That case is likely to be back before the justices soon.

Cases involving Mr. Trump’s attempt to alter birthright citizenship are also likely to land on the justices’ doorstep.

But firings and spending are the two big areas of legal battles right now that the court is likely to grapple with.

Mr. Trump has had mixed success in lower courts. Some of his personnel moves have been upheld, but others have been ruled illegal. On spending, he’s seen several judges rule against him.

Justice Alito, in his dissent Wednesday, said that’s a worrying trend.

He called Judge Ali’s ruling “an act of judicial hubris” and said his colleagues on the high court made “a most unfortunate step” in allowing it to stand.

He suggested the lower court could have limited the spending to $250 million, rather than the $2 billion.

“As the nation’s highest court, we have a duty to ensure that the power entrusted to federal judges by the Constitution is not abused. Today, the court fails to carry out that responsibility,” Justice Alito wrote.