A deeply divided Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday against the Trump administration’s request to halt a lower court’s order on foreign aid funding.
This decision paves the way for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to resume nearly $2 billion in payments.
In a 5-4 order, the Supreme Court directed the lower court to clarify what obligations the government must meet concerning global health groups for work already completed, taking into account the “feasibility of any compliance timelines.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett aligned with the three liberal justices in rejecting the administration’s emergency appeal. This marks the Supreme Court’s first significant ruling on lawsuits concerning President Donald Trump’s second-term initiatives.
The decision prompted a strong dissent from four conservative justices, who argued that a District Court judge in D.C. likely does not have the authority to compel the federal government to make such payments.
“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,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., with Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Brett M. Kavanaugh joining his dissent.
A federal judge in D.C. had previously ordered the funds to begin flowing last week after determining that the Trump administration had disregarded an earlier ruling.
That ruling stated that the 90-day freeze on all foreign aid had been imposed too abruptly and should be lifted for the time being.
However, the government appealed the February 26 deadline, arguing that it would take weeks for USAID and the State Department to restart payments for work completed before February 13.
Wednesday’s ruling represents the first significant test of Trump’s wave of executive orders and firings at the start of his second term. With the administration already facing over 100 lawsuits challenging its actions in lower courts, additional rulings are anticipated.
The majority dismissed arguments from acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris, who described U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali’s deadline as an “impossible order,” citing the mere 36-hour compliance window. Harris further contended that the judge had overstepped his authority, an assertion the Trump administration has frequently made in its efforts to expand executive power.
“Ordering the United States to pay all pending requests under foreign-aid instruments on a timeline of the district court’s choosing—without regard to whether the requests are legitimate, or even due yet—intrudes on the President’s broad foreign-affairs powers and upends the systems the Executive Branch has established to disburse aid,” Harris wrote in a Monday filing.
Donald Trump
The dissenting justices found this argument compelling.
The government “must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste—not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered,” Alito wrote. “As the Nation’s highest court, we have a duty to ensure that the power entrusted to federal judges by the Constitution is not abused. Today, the Court fails to carry out that responsibility.”
The lawsuit seeking to resume funding was filed by the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council. They alleged that the Trump administration had violated a temporary restraining order issued by Ali, which initially mandated payments to resume in mid-February.
The organizations argued that the funding freeze had placed aid groups on the brink of financial collapse, led to staff layoffs, and disrupted critical humanitarian efforts, such as providing HIV medication and food aid to vulnerable regions worldwide.
In court filings, they contended that the government had created an “emergency of its own making” by failing to comply with the restraining order.
“Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court confirms that the Administration cannot ignore the law. To stop needless suffering and death, the government must now comply with the order issued three weeks ago to lift its unlawful termination of federal assistance,” the groups said in a statement after the decision.
A senior USAID official was placed on leave Sunday after circulating internal memos warning that the funding freeze would lead to “preventable death, destabilization, and threats to national security on a massive scale.”
In a Monday filing, the global health groups cited these memos as further evidence that the administration had taken no steps toward compliance with the court’s February 13 temporary restraining order and had instead worked actively to prevent it.
The memos estimated that the foreign aid freeze could result in an additional 166,000 malaria deaths annually, 200,000 more cases of polio, and up to 3 million additional deaths per year due to the suspension of immunization programs.
Ali’s February 26 deadline required the government to begin paying for all humanitarian relief work completed before February 13.
The Supreme Court’s ruling only considered whether to delay this deadline, leaving the broader temporary restraining order in effect until March 10. That order prevents the government from suspending a broader range of payments and from dismantling USAID operations.
The global health organizations argue that the government continues to ignore the broader order. They filed suit after Trump, on his first day in office, imposed a 90-day halt on foreign aid, stating that he wanted to reassess the assistance to determine whether it aligned with his foreign policy agenda.
The Trump administration informed Ali that it could still freeze the funds and scale back USAID operations despite the temporary restraining order, citing existing statutes and regulations independent of Trump’s initial directive.
An administration spokesperson has stated that the review of foreign aid identified 5,800 USAID awards worth approximately $54 billion and 4,100 State Department grants that could be cut.
Following an intense February 25 hearing, Ali ordered the government to resume funding the following day.
The legal dispute over the foreign aid freeze will now continue in lower courts, where the global health groups have requested a preliminary injunction—offering a more permanent halt to the funding suspension than the temporary restraining order.
This case marks the second time the Supreme Court has weighed in on one of Trump’s early executive actions. Last month, the justices deferred a ruling on the administration’s attempt to remove the head of an independent watchdog agency, as legal battles over the issue continue in lower courts.
