Judge's deadline to resume foreign-aid payments is not 'review-worthy,' ABA, other plaintiffs tell SCOTUS
The ABA and other groups that receive funding for foreign assistance programs told the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday that a federal judge’s deadline to resume some payments “presents no review-worthy legal question.” (Photo from Shutterstock)
The ABA and other groups that receive funding for foreign assistance programs told the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday that a federal judge’s deadline to resume some payments “presents no review-worthy legal question.”
U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali of the District of Columbia set the deadline after the federal government “took no steps” to comply with his Feb. 13 order to reinstate foreign aid funding in connection with grants and contracts, the groups said in a brief filed Friday.
Ali required government payment by the end of the day Feb. 26 for work completed before President Donald Trump halted foreign assistance projects for 90 days.
Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay pausing Ali’s order late in the day Feb. 26 after the government sought to vacate the deadline.
The ABA is a plaintiff in one of two consolidated lawsuits before Ali. The association has had “tens of millions of dollars” in federal funding frozen for foreign rule of law and human rights programs, the ABA said in a suit that it filed along with the Global Health Council and other organizations.
Ali’s order appears to contemplate the immediate outlay of nearly $2 billion, the government argued in its request to vacate Ali’s order filed with the Supreme Court.
Ali’s order had set an “arbitrary timeline” and “untenable payment plan,” the government argued.
Ali is an appointee of former President Joe Biden.
There is no Supreme Court jurisdiction, the ABA and other groups argued in their response, because there is no final judgment that can be appealed. And if there is jurisdiction, there is no showing that Ali abused his discretion, the brief said.
“To the extent that this case, writ large, implicates broader legal questions about the scope of executive power or the availability of particular remedies for unlawful agency action, those questions are not presently before the court in a form suitable for review,” the brief said. “They are, however, subject to active and ongoing district-court litigation. And for whichever parties do not prevail, an appealable order in that litigation is imminent.”
The halt to payments plunged the plaintiffs “into financial turmoil” and had far-reaching impact, the plaintiffs said in the Supreme Court brief.
The plaintiffs said their work “advances U.S. interests abroad and improves—and, in many cases, literally saves—the lives of millions of people across the globe. In doing so, it helps stop problems like disease and instability overseas before they reach our shores. The government’s actions have largely brought this work to a halt. … With Americans out of work, businesses ruined, food rotting, and critical medical care withheld, … the public interest weighs heavily against the government.”
The defendants in the suit include the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Office of Management and Budget. The suits contend that the funding freeze was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, a violation of the separation of powers, a violation of the Constitution’s take care clause and beyond a president’s powers.
Publications covering the brief include Law.com, the Washington Post, Courthouse News Service and Reuters.
See also:
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
