The USAID Case: Judge Amir Ali’s $2 Billion Defiance Escalates

The Supreme Court’s recent refusal to vacate the lower court’s order in the USAID case has sharply divided legal observers—especially conservatives. Some initially dismissed it as a mere procedural hiccup, a fleeting technical matter that would quietly resolve itself.

They were wrong then. They are even more wrong now. Judge Amir Ali’s latest ruling makes that painfully clear.

As someone who has served as a judicial officer on appellate review, I know how these battles unfold behind closed doors. I’ve seen colleagues wobbly in their convictions. I’ve written blistering dissents. I’ve withheld dissents when persuading a majority to reconsider. That is precisely why Justice Alito’s fiery dissent—joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh—must not be rationalized away.

Some legal analysts still insist this case is minor. Why did Alito and the conservative wing sound the alarm with such force if that were true?

They weren’t quibbling over technicalities. This wasn’t just a procedural disagreement.

It was a judicial broadside—a full-throated rebuke of Judge Ali’s overreach and the Supreme Court majority’s failure to stop it.

Yet the dissent’s harshest terms weren’t aimed at Judge Ali. They were squarely directed at the Supreme Court majority—particularly Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett—who had the power to stop this and failed.

The dissenters understood precisely what was at stake. They had spoken with their colleagues, listened in and out of conference, and still found themselves “stunned” by the outcome.

If this round of lawfare ends in a Trump administration victory, it won’t be due to some brilliant “long game” from Roberts and Barrett. It will be because one or both break ranks and side with Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

Immediate Dismissal Means Immediate—No Exceptions

At its core, the USAID case is about jurisdiction.

This dispute is rooted in contract law—whether USAID breached its agreements with the plaintiffs and, if so, whether it can be compelled to pay. The plaintiffs disguised this as an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) case, maneuvering it into a federal district court that lacks jurisdiction.

Federal district courts have no authority over government contract disputes—period. 

Moreover, APA claims cannot result in monetary damages against the government, making this lawsuit a manufactured attempt to engineer a constitutional controversy.

Under the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over monetary claims against the federal government in cases where sovereign immunity is waived. Yet, instead of filing in the proper court, the plaintiffs strategically chose the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

I’ll let you decide if that was an innocent mistake or a deliberate ploy.

Regardless, one thing is clear: Judge Ali’s every order in this case exceeds his authority. Every. Single. One.

When a court clearly lacks jurisdiction, as here, dismissal is the only remedy. Yet, rather than throwing this case out, Ali seized authority he didn’t have and issued a series of orders that should have never been possible.

The Supreme Court could have stopped this cold. Instead, they kicked the can down the road.

Judge Ali’s $2 Billion Power Grab Redux

Ali escalated instead of recognizing his lack of jurisdiction and shutting the case down.

Predictably, he doubled down—ordering the Trump administration to expedite nearly $2 billion in payments at a staggering pace of at least 300 back payments daily.

Let that sink in.

This is an outright hijacking of executive power. A district court judge—lacking jurisdiction—has unilaterally seized control of the government’s purse, injected himself into a separation of powers dispute without the legislative branch even before him, and is forcing the Trump administration to spend billions in taxpayer dollars at breakneck speed—against its will.

Short of outright dismissal, the Supreme Court had one job: freeze the money. The only way to stop this judicial overreach was to issue a stay. The only way to prevent it from spiraling further was to force Judge Ali to establish jurisdiction before issuing another order.

Instead, the majority punted—sending the case back with vague instructions to “clarify” his ruling.

Clarify what? His lack of jurisdiction? That would have been a step in the right direction.

And now? The money is flowing.

So much for the claim that the Supreme Court’s decision was some strategic move to check lower courts. If that was the goal, the message got garbled, the wires got crossed, and taxpayers are footing the bill for the Supreme Court’s failure.

The “Long Game” Fantasy Collapses

Some observers still cling to the notion that Roberts and Barrett are playing a “long game”—biding their time before reining in activist judges.

That’s not a strategy. That’s wishful thinking.

If they were truly aligned with Alito, the Supreme Court would have done two things:

1. Ordered Judge Ali to confirm jurisdiction before issuing further rulings.
2. Maintained the stay—freezing further payments until jurisdiction was resolved.

That never happened. Instead, ambiguity prevailed. Activist judges thrive on ambiguity.

Justice Alito saw this coming. He called it. And he was entirely right.

119 Cases and Counting—Lawfare in Real Time

For those who think this will all work out eventually, answer me this:

How do you claw back taxpayer money that’s already been spent?

This isn’t abstract or theoretical. The left is winning—right now.

The Trump administration is up against a coordinated lawfare campaign. Since Inauguration Day, 119 cases and counting have been filed to sabotage its policies. The goal isn’t necessarily to win on the merits—it’s to run out the clock until at least the midterms or until the end of Trump’s second term.

This USAID case was a layup for the Supreme Court. It should have been an easy win—a simple ruling that lower courts can’t invent jurisdiction. Instead, Roberts and Barrett spectacularly missed their chance.

The Supreme Court Cannot Miss Again

This case will return to the Supreme Court. It has to. And when it does, the justices cannot afford to miss again.

Judicial overreach is no longer theoretical—it’s happening in real time. And the Supreme Court just sent a message: lower courts can get away with it.

This cannot stand.

When this case comes back, the Court must act decisively. No more waiting. No more procedural hedging. No more “long games.”

And to my colleagues in the legal punditry class, especially fellow conservatives:

When in doubt, trust Justice Alito.

Every day of the week. And twice on Sunday.

Charlton Allen is an attorney, former chief executive officer, and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is the founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and the host of the Modern Federalist podcast. X: @CharltonAllenNC

<img alt="gavel, justice, judge" captext="Pixabay” src=”https://conservativenewsbriefing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/the-usaid-case-judge-amir-alis-2-billion-defiance-escalates.jpg”>

Image: Free image, Pixabay license.