Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to freeze aid contracts

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court denied the Trump administration's request to be allowed not to pay $2 billion in aid contracts.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a lower court’s order that the Trump administration pay out $2 billion in fees for contracted USAID work already completed by contractors.

The unsigned order does not require immediate payment, though it does require the administration comply with a more detailed order it requested from the lower court.

The ruling is historic and of potentially far-reaching importance, since two of the court’s six conservative Justices agreed with the three liberal Justices, the plaintiffs, and the lower court, that the President does not have authority to unilaterally seize appropriated funds or deny payment for services completed.

There are worrying signs in the dissent, authored by Justice Alito. In particular, Alito falsely asserts that the lower court “lacks jurisdiction”. He also uses highly argumentative language, effectively making a non-legal case for the Trump administration, falsely claiming the lower court is demanding “unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars”.

Alito’s arguments suggest anger at the law having been upheld and a legally unfounded wish that Trump be allowed to act without explicit legal authority, even in defiance of court orders.

Though the ruling focused narrowly on the specific contracts at issue in the lower court case, it could effectively act as a clarification of the separation of powers and a defense of the Article I authority of Congress to appropriate funds and control spending.

That would mean the Trump administration would need to get Congressional authorization to redirect funding, close or significantly reduce staffing at agencies, and to change long-term budget priorities in areas of concern to the public.