Supreme Court Directs $2 Billion Payment to Foreign Aid Contractors
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a brief ruling that enforces the government’s obligation to pay foreign aid contractors up to $2 billion for completed work. This directive emerges amid ongoing discussions regarding the legality of funding suspensions related to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Background on Funding Disputes
Following President Donald Trump’s second term inauguration, efforts were made by his administration to cease funding for USAID. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling reinforces a lower court’s decision that barred the administration from halting or delaying the disbursement of foreign aid funds that had received congressional approval as of January 19.
Supreme Court’s Brief Ruling
This Supreme Court decision is characterized as a minor setback for Trump. The terse order, comprising just one paragraph, indicates that the Court will not reconsider the lower court’s ruling due to procedural errors made by the acting solicitor general and the Justice Department’s team involved in the case.
The ruling was reached by a close 5-4 vote, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh siding with the dissent articulated by Justice Samuel Alito, highlighting some continuation of support for Trump’s position among certain justices.
Details of the Legal Proceedings
The timeline of events commenced on February 13, when federal District Judge Amir Ali issued an initial order designating the Trump administration’s funding suspension as arbitrarily illegal. Judge Ali remarked that the administration had failed to justify the suspension of all foreign aid funds as a necessary measure for evaluating program compliance with Trump’s policy objectives.
Subsequently, on February 25, Judge Ali reaffirmed this decision, mandating the State Department and USAID to process all invoices and requests for completed work following the February 13 order.
The Missteps of Trump’s Legal Team
Justice Alito raised concerns regarding the Trump administration’s approach to the case, suggesting that the plaintiffs might have filed in the incorrect jurisdiction. Alito proposed that the case should have been directed to the Court of Federal Claims instead of Ali’s U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia. However, the Trump legal team failed to challenge the February 13 order directly, opting to only contest the February 25 enforcement order, which limited the arguments that could be presented before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s majority order reiterated, “the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds,” without challenging the necessity for compliance with this order.
Additionally, the majority called for Judge Ali to further clarify the obligations required by the government to comply with his temporary restraining order, suggesting caution towards the government’s ability to meet potentially onerous compliance timelines.
Broader Constitutional Implications
Despite the immediate resolution of payment requirements, the ruling sidesteps larger constitutional debates regarding the executive branch’s authority to withhold federal funds. The Trump administration contends an ability to “impound” federal funding without congressional approval, a claim that many legal scholars argue is unconstitutional. This contention echoes opinions from legal precedents, including a 1969 memo by then-future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, which stated that it is constitutionally challenging to justify a refusal by the President to adhere to a congressional directive regarding federal spending.
Further elaborating on this issue, Kavanaugh previously noted, as a lower court judge, that even the President lacks unilateral authority to reject spending plans outlined by Congress.
While the Supreme Court has deferred addressing these significant constitutional questions, it has not ruled out a future consideration of whether Trump can indeed execute such fiscal impoundments. Current indications suggest the Court may prioritize procedural oversights over broader governance issues in its current term.
For now, the Supreme Court’s recent directive illuminates procedural flaws rather than providing clarity on executive authority related to federal funding, leaving crucial constitutional questions unresolved.
