A sharply divided Supreme Court made headlines on Wednesday by denying the Trump administration’s appeal to block a lower court order regarding foreign aid funding. This pivotal decision paves the way for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to resume nearly $2 billion in payments for work that has already been completed. The ruling, which was a 5-4 order, saw Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett siding with the court’s three liberal justices, marking a significant moment in ongoing legal battles related to President Donald Trump’s initiatives during his second term.
The Supreme Court did not provide an explanation for its decision but directed the lower court to clarify the obligations the government must meet to global health organizations for completed work. This includes considering the feasibility of any compliance timelines. Soon after the ruling, the lower court instructed the government to establish a timeline for resuming these critical payments.
Aid organizations argued that the Trump administration was disregarding a federal judge’s order to fulfill its financial obligations. They welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling as an affirmation that the president is not above the law. Conversely, the dissenting opinion from the four conservative justices raised concerns regarding the authority of a U.S. district court judge in Washington, D.C. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Brett M. Kavanaugh, expressed astonishment that a single district judge could compel the federal government to allocate taxpayer funds without adequate jurisdiction.
Justice Alito articulated his concerns, stating, “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?” He argued that the majority's decision could signal a longer legal battle regarding the administration's ability to freeze such payments, especially given the court’s recent history of expanding presidential powers.
The case initiated by the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council followed U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali's ruling that mandated the resumption of payments after the administration was found to have defied earlier orders. The judge had determined that a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid was imposed too hastily and must be lifted. The Trump administration, however, contested a February 26 deadline imposed by the district court, arguing that it would require additional time to comply.
During the proceedings, acting solicitor general Sarah M. Harris argued that Judge Ali’s deadline was an “impossible order,” providing officials insufficient time to comply. Harris further claimed that the judge had exceeded his authority, a recurring theme in the Trump administration's approach to expanding executive power. Alito and the dissenting justices echoed these sentiments, criticizing the ruling as overly broad and detrimental to the administration's established processes for disbursing aid.
The halt in foreign aid has had severe implications for humanitarian organizations, pushing many to the brink of insolvency and delaying critical assistance such as lifesaving HIV medications and food support in unstable regions. The organizations indicated that the government's failure to comply with the restraining order created an “emergency of its own making.” In a statement following the Supreme Court's ruling, they emphasized the urgency of compliance to prevent further suffering and loss of life.
The legal battle surrounding the foreign aid freeze is set to continue in the lower courts, where the global health organizations are seeking a preliminary injunction to impose a more permanent halt than the temporary restraining order that remains in effect until March 10. As the situation evolves, the ongoing disputes highlight the intersection of executive power, judicial authority, and the critical role of foreign aid in global health initiatives.
