President Donald Trump and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito exchange handshakes following the swearing-in of Mark Esper as Secretary of Defense in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington on Tuesday, July 23, 2019. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster).
In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request from the Trump administration to stop a federal judge’s order mandating the release of nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds for completed projects. Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the majority opinion, writing a strong rebuke in which he expressed being shocked by the decision.
Alito questioned the authority of a single district court judge, likely lacking jurisdiction, to force the U.S. government to pay out $2 billion in taxpayer money. He emphasized that this power should not exist, but a majority of the Court disagreed. On this matter, Alito stated, “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”
Alito was joined in the dissent by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, all of whom believed that U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali exceeded his authority in ordering the administration to “immediately” make the foreign aid distributions.
Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett (a Trump appointee) sided with the plaintiffs, a coalition of organizations who had entered into contracts or received grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department.
The majority did not provide detailed reasoning for the court denying the administration’s request, but did instruct Ali to “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.”
Litigation in the highly watched case has moved at lightning speed since last week, beginning with a Feb. 25 emergency hearing during which the plaintiffs presented evidence that the administration had failed to abide by a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting the implementation of the across-the-board freeze.
During those proceedings, Ali lambasted the government’s attorney for saying he was “not in a position to answer” whether any of the funds covered by the court’s order had been unfrozen. A frustrated Ali concluded the hearing with a series of onerous directions to enforce compliance with the temporary restraining order, instructing the administration to unfreeze funds for contract payments on work completed before Feb. 13, 2025, by 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 26.
Just hours before the payment deadline, Chief Justice Roberts issued an administrative stay, halting the order until the full court could weigh in.
In his dissent, Alito said the other justices had shirked their responsibility by not vacating or “at the very least,” staying Ali’s order.
“As a result, the Government must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste — not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered,” he 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.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
Alito asserted that Ali’s order directing the government to pay money owed for work already completed was barred by sovereign immunity, which bars suits from private parties seeking to impose liability that must be paid from public funds.
According to Alito, the district court failed to properly analyze precedential cases before “plowing ahead with its $2 billion order.”
“The most that can be said is that in the District Court’s denial of the Government’s motion for a stay pending appeal, it cited but did not analyze a handful of cases echoing Bowen’s discussion of the APA’s [Administrative Procedure Act] conscribed waiver of sovereign immunity,” the dissent states. “One might expect more care from a federal court before it so blithely discards ‘sovereign dignity.””
Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers. The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response. A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them. I would chart a different path than the Court does today, so I must respectfully dissent.
