The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a lower court judge in Washington, D.C., has the authority to compel the Trump administration to release up to $2 billion in previously frozen foreign aid funds. However, the Supreme Court also instructed the judge to clarify the exact responsibilities placed on the government and ensure there is adequate time for compliance.
The 5-4 decision rejected the administration’s emergency request to halt the order, which required the government to pay contractors and aid organizations for work completed before February 13, 2025.
Ongoing Legal Battle and Disputed Authority
The dispute stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day back in office, pausing all foreign aid disbursements pending a comprehensive review. The order directed officials to reassess thousands of State Department and USAID contracts, with plans to cut about 75% of them, affecting roughly 10,000 out of 13,100 existing awards.
Several aid groups, including the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council, challenged the funding freeze, arguing that Trump exceeded his authority and violated both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and separation of powers principles.
Federal Court Ruling and Supreme Court Review
U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali, sided with the aid groups and issued a temporary restraining order on February 13. When the Trump administration failed to comply, Judge Ali ordered payment by February 26, a deadline temporarily blocked by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The administration pleaded that the lower court lacked jurisdiction, arguing that disputes over federal contracts should be handled by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the Contract Disputes Act or Tucker Act. They also argued that the order improperly restricted the president’s foreign affairs powers.
Dissenting Opinions
Four conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — dissented. Justice Alito’s dissent criticized the lower court’s order, calling it an overreach of judicial authority and warning of its financial and constitutional implications. He also expressed concern that the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the payments effectively imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.
Alito argued that the aid groups would not suffer irreversible harm from further delays, especially compared to the potential long-term damage to executive authority and government finances. He further criticized Judge Ali for disregarding sovereign immunity principles, which normally prevent courts from ordering direct monetary relief against the U.S. government in APA cases.
Looking Ahead – Supreme Court Decision Requires Trump Administration to Release $2 Billion in Foreign Aid
The case is now returned to Judge Ali for further proceedings, with a preliminary injunction hearing already scheduled. The broader legal questions — including the limits of presidential power over foreign aid and the proper judicial remedies in administrative disputes — are likely to remain points of contention as the litigation continues.
The ruling also highlights the ongoing power struggle between the executive and judicial branches, with future cases expected to shape the balance of power over federal spending and foreign assistance programs.
To stay updated and informed, watch our news section or drop your immigration queries on immigrationquestion.com and get responses from professional attorneys.
