Ruling in ABA suit, SCOTUS denies US bid to vacate deadline for foreign-aid payments; Alito is 'stunned'
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to vacate a judge’s Feb. 26 deadline for the United States to make foreign-aid payments for work already completed in connection with grants and contracts. (Image from Shutterstock)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to vacate a judge’s Feb. 26 deadline for the United States to make foreign-aid payments for work already completed in connection with grants and contracts.
Noting that the deadline has passed, the Supreme Court majority said the federal judge should clarify what obligations the government must fulfill as he considers a preliminary injunction request “with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.”
The high court ruled 5-4 in two consolidated lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s foreign-aid funding freeze, including one filed by the ABA and other plaintiffs. The majority was made up of Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Roberts had issued an administrative stay Feb. 26 that paused the federal judge’s deadline as the Supreme Court considered the government request. The Supreme Court lifted the stay in its March 5 order.
The ABA has had “tens of millions of dollars” in federal funding frozen for foreign rule of law and human rights programs, the association said in a suit that it filed along with the Global Health Council and other organizations.
U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali of the District of Columbia set the Feb. 26 deadline after the federal government “took no steps” to comply with his Feb. 13 temporary restraining order to reinstate foreign aid funding in connection with grants and contracts, the ABA and other plaintiffs said in a Supreme Court brief filed Friday.
Foreign-aid grants and contracts are administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Department of State, which are among the defendants in the consolidated suits.
The ABA and other groups had argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the government’s request to vacate the deadline because there was no final judgment that can be appealed. And if there is jurisdiction, there is no showing that Ali abused his discretion, the brief said.
The halt to payments plunged the plaintiffs “into financial turmoil” and had far-reaching impact, bringing to a halt foreign-aid work that “literally saves” lives, the plaintiffs said in the Supreme Court brief.
The government said the deadline appeared to contemplate the immediate outlay of nearly $2 billion. Ali’s order had set an “arbitrary timeline” and “untenable payment plan,” the government argued.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the Supreme Court’s March 5 decision, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
“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. I am stunned.”
Alito argued that Ali’s enforcement order should be construed as an appealable preliminary injunction, rather than a nonappealable TRO.
Alito said Ali “brushed aside” and “shrugged off” the government’s argument that sovereign immunity barred his enforcement order. As a result of the majority’s decision, “the government must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste—not because the law requires it but simply because a district judge so ordered,” Alito wrote.
Alito said the Supreme Court should stay the enforcement order until the government can file a cert petition with the Supreme Court. Only four votes are needed to grant cert.
“Today, the court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers,” 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.”
The two suits are Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Trump v. Global Health Council.
They argue 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.
Hat tip to Politico, CNN and the New York Times, which had breaking news of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
