The Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s order requiring the United States Agency for International Development and the State Department to pay immediately approximately $2 billion owed to contractors for work already completed.
The ruling comes after a temporary stay issued by Chief Justice John Roberts on Feb. 26, which paused a lower court’s mandate that compelled the government to disburse the funds by midnight that day. But in a 5-4 decision Wednesday, the justices denied the Trump administration’s request to vacate the lower court’s order, allowing the payments to proceed. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
The decision marks a legal defeat for the Trump administration’s efforts to freeze the funds as part of its broader attempt to curtail foreign aid spending, one that some sympathetic justices described as shocking.
In his dissent, Alito condemned the majority’s decision, arguing that a single district judge should not have the unchecked power to compel the federal government to disburse such a large sum of money.
He emphasized concerns over sovereign immunity and the loss of taxpayer funds, writing, “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”
The legal dispute began when the administration moved to halt USAID foreign aid payments, prompting a lawsuit from contractors and nonprofit groups that had already completed projects and were awaiting compensation. On Feb. 13, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued a temporary restraining order barring the administration from freezing the funds. The court followed up with a Feb. 25 order requiring immediate payment for work performed before the restraining order was put in place.
SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH TRUMP IN USAID FUNDING DISPUTE FOR NOW
The ruling underscores a broader tension between the administration’s aggressive executive actions and the judiciary’s role in checking presidential authority.
With a conservative supermajority on the high court, the decision also signals that not all justices are willing to back Trump’s expansive view of executive power in every case. The decision could have significant implications for other legal battles over the administration’s unilateral policy shifts.
