The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to overturn a lower court order compelling the Trump administration to release approximately $2 billion in paused foreign assistance funding, despite objections from four dissenting justices who warned of significant overreach.
In a brief decision issued March 5, the Court denied the federal government’s emergency request to vacate an order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that mandated payments to various nonprofit organizations and businesses involved in overseas development projects.
The payments had been halted temporarily by the administration, prompting a lawsuit from the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and other groups alleging the pause violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The Supreme Court’s denial leaves in place the lower court’s requirement that the administration release funds for completed work prior to February 13, the date a temporary restraining order was issued against the funding pause.
“Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance,” the Court’s majority opinion stated.
Chief Justice Roberts previously issued a brief administrative stay shortly before the original payment deadline, which the Court vacated in Wednesday’s ruling.
Justice Samuel Alito strongly dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
Alito criticized the majority for allowing what he described as a lower court judge’s “unchecked power” to force the federal government into making irreversible payments totaling billions of taxpayer dollars.
“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, characterizing the district court’s decision as exceeding jurisdictional limits and ignoring sovereign immunity protections.
The dissent further argued that the district court misrepresented the nature of its order, effectively turning what should have been a temporary restraining order into a mandatory injunction that required immediate disbursement of substantial funds.
“This left the Government little time to try to obtain some review of what it regarded as a lawless order,” Alito added.
Alito emphasized that the proper channel for such financial disputes involving government payments typically lies within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims rather than through injunctions issued by a district court under the APA.
The Court’s decision not to intervene suggests that payments must proceed promptly, leaving broader questions of jurisdictional authority and sovereign immunity likely to surface in future litigation or legislative debate.