On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court greenlit an overreaching lower court order that effectively forces the Trump administration to disburse $2 billion in foreign grant money.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court’s majority denied a request by the federal government to vacate a Feb. 25 ruling by D.C. District Court Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee. That directive, according to SCOTUS, ordered the State Department and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to disburse roughly $2 billion in foreign grants to nongovernmental groups for “work already completed before the issuance of the District Court’s temporary restraining order — by 11:59 p.m. on February 26.”
Ali had previously issued a temporary restraining order on Feb. 13 preventing the Trump administration from lawfully pausing the distribution of such funds.
In response, the administration filed an application with SCOTUS hours before the aforementioned deadline asking that Ali’s Feb. 25 order be vacated and that a stay on the ruling be issued. Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay hours before the deadline and referred the petition to the whole court for further consideration.
The high court’s majority did not provide a reason for the denial of the administration’s application in Tuesday’s decision. “Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings,” the Supreme Court did, however, order the D.C. district court to “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.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s Democrat appointees in denying the administration’s request. Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh would have granted the application.
In his dissenting opinion, Alito excoriated the majority for authorizing the lower court’s judicial overreach, noting that the decision to do so left him “stunned.”
“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?” Alito wrote. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise.”
[READ: Amy Coney Barrett’s SCOTUS Tenure Has Been Disappointing (So Far)]
The associate justice went on to note how the Supreme Court has “a duty to ensure that the power entrusted to federal judges by the Constitution is not abused,” and that by refusing to grant the administration’s application, the high court “fails to carry out that responsibility.” He specifically argued that the majority’s “most unfortunate misstep” effectively “rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.”
“The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response,” Alito wrote. “A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them. I would chart a different path than the Court does today, so I must respectfully dissent.”
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
Jesus Christ is King
