The Supreme Court rebuffed a Trump administration petition Wednesday to rebuke a federal judge who gave the White House until last week to unfreeze roughly $2 billion in overseas aid.
Acknowledging that the deadline had already passed, the high court called on DC US District Judge Amir Ali to “clarify” his order and show “due regard for the feasibility” of any follow-up deadline he imposes.
The 5-4 decision leaves in place Ali’s temporary restraining order blocking the administration’s freeze ahead of a Thursday hearing before the judge to determine whether the order should be extended.
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Trump administration push to rebuke a federal judge who imposed a quick deadline to release billions of dollars in foreign aid. REUTERS“The District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines,” wrote the majority, consisting of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Wednesday’s order noted that the Trump administration had only challenged the deadline Ali had set to unfreeze the aid, not the order itself.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito penned a dissent and was backed by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and 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? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,'” Alito wrote in a scathing dissent.
“But a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”
Last week, Roberts temporarily halted Ali’s ruling while the high court weighed its next steps. This is the first significant challenge against President Trump’s effort to overhaul the federal government that the high court has encountered.
At issue is the Trump administration’s 90-day freeze on US Agency for International Development (USAID) spending amid a review to ensure the outlays were aligned with the president’s policies.
Various contractors and aid groups sued the administration, arguing that Uncle Sam owes them money for work already done.
People hold placards, as the USAID building sits closed to employees after a memo was issued advising agency personnel to work remotely, in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 3, 2025. REUTERSAli, a Biden appointee, had given the Trump administration a deadline of Feb. 26 to unfreeze the payments while considering the broader challenge.
The Trump administration countered in court documents that it would need “multiple weeks” to fully comply due to logistical challenges. The administration also underscored that it “takes seriously its constitutional duty to comply with the orders.”
Several groups, such as the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Journalism Development Network, DAI Global and refugee assistance organization HIAS had sued the Trump administration over the freeze.
Documents from the State Department and court filings have revealed that the administration is looking to slash about $57 billion in foreign aid spending and nix 92% of USAID grants.
The administration plans to cut 5,800 out of 6,200 USAID multiyear contracts and 4,100 of 9,100 State Department grants, per those records.
