On Friday, the Supreme Court delivered another significant victory for the Trump administration by permitting it to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid appropriated by Congress. This ruling comes in the wake of a federal judge’s earlier decision that mandated the administration to allocate the funds by the end of the month. However, the Supreme Court's recent decision has temporarily paused this requirement.
The Supreme Court's brief order indicated that the government successfully demonstrated that the groups involved in the lawsuit were barred from bringing their case under the Impoundment Control Act. This law, established to regulate presidential control over budgetary allocations, is under scrutiny as the court—with its 6-3 conservative majority—acknowledged that the potential harms to the Executive's foreign affairs operations outweigh the concerns of the plaintiffs, who are various organizations reliant on foreign aid.
Since President Trump’s second term commenced in January, the Supreme Court has granted 20 emergency applications filed by the administration, a rate of filings and favorable rulings that is unprecedented in recent history.
The court's three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan commenting that the legal issues presented in this case have not been previously addressed, putting the court in uncharted territory. Kagan expressed her belief that the majority should have denied the application, allowing lower courts to proceed and ensuring that significant legal questions receive the thorough consideration they warrant. She emphasized that the decision was made without oral arguments or a fully reasoned opinion.
On September 9, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary stay, placing the lower court's ruling on hold while the Supreme Court deliberated its next steps. The Trump administration has vigorously sought to assert its authority over Congress, recently notifying lawmakers of its intent not to spend the foreign aid funds. This action has ignited a debate regarding the president's constitutional authority over budget allocations, as it is traditionally Congress's role to allocate funds for presidential expenditure.
The funds in question were appropriated by Congress for the current fiscal year, ending on September 30. The Trump administration has indicated its intention to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid while still committing to spend an additional $6.5 billion that Congress has allocated. The Impoundment Control Act was enacted in 1974 to prevent similar scenarios, following President Richard Nixon’s attempts to withhold funding for programs he opposed.
The administration claims it can withhold these funds through a process known as rescission, where the president formally informs Congress of his intention not to spend certain allocated funds. However, with limited time left before the funds are set to expire, it seems unlikely that Congress will respond, even if there was a desire to do so. The Republicans, who generally support Trump's policies, control both chambers of Congress and are currently focused on funding the government for the upcoming fiscal year before October 1, to prevent a government shutdown.
The decision to delay notifying Congress until the end of the fiscal year raises legal questions, with critics labeling this tactic as a “pocket rescission.” This method has not been utilized in nearly half a century. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled on September 3 that the administration must allocate the funds unless Congress acts to withdraw them. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Judge Ali's ruling imposed undue limitations on presidential powers by compelling the administration to engage in diplomatic negotiations regarding the allocation of the funds.
The lawsuit challenging Trump's rescission was led by various groups, including the Global Health Council, whose legal team contended that the administration's arguments would invert the intent of the Impoundment Control Act, which was designed to limit the president's ability to withhold funds, thereby granting the executive branch expansive new powers to impound funds and making legal challenges against such actions nearly impossible.
