Trump Admin Asks SCOTUS For Relief In USAID Funding Case

The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to block a lower court order attempting to compel the government to disburse billions of dollars in foreign grants.

In his emergency application, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer requested the justices to stay an order from D.C. District Court Judge Amir Ali. That directive instructed the Trump administration to disburse billions of dollars in U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) grants for various nongovernmental organizations.

“This Court should stay the district court’s preliminary injunction requiring the government to make available for obligation the full amount of the funds Congress appropriated in the 2024 Appropriations Act,” Sauer wrote.

The case stems back to the early weeks of the administration, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio — in compliance with an executive order by President Trump — issued a freeze on all USAID grants. The move prompted legal action by various recipients of the funds, with plaintiffs filing their case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Like clockwork, Biden-appointed Judge Amir Ali issued a Feb. 25 directive ordering the Trump administration to resume distributing the grant money to their intended recipients. This ultimately led the government to file a motion with SCOTUS asking the high court to pause Ali’s ruling.

In a move that left Associate Justice Samuel Alito “stunned,” the high court declined the administration’s request on March 5. The decision was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the Democrat appointees in siding against the government.

While the majority did not offer an explanation for its ruling, the justices instructed the district court 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.”

According to left-wing SCOTUSblog, “When the case returned to the district court, Ali concluded (among other things) that the Trump administration had likely violated both federal law and the Constitution when it canceled funds that Congress had earmarked for foreign aid.” The Biden appointee, as described by the outlet, “barred the government ‘from unlawfully impounding congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds’ and directed the government to ‘make available for obligation the full amount of funds that Congress’ had allocated.”

The Trump administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which resulted in a three-judge panel lifting Ali’s order. The plaintiffs then sought relief from the full D.C. Circuit, which has yet to issue a verdict on the matter.

“As a result, Ali’s order remains in place for now,” according to SCOTUSblog.

In his Tuesday application, Sauer argued that, without SCOTUS’s intervention, “the D.C. Circuit’s inaction will preclude the government from proposing rescissions and allowing funds to expire if Congress’s fails to act before September 30.”

“In other words, it will effectively force the government to rapidly obligate some $12 billion in foreign-aid funds that would expire September 30 and to continue obligating tens of billions of dollars more — overriding the Executive Branch’s foreign-policy judgments regarding whether to pursue rescissions and thwarting interbranch dialogue. That alone is irreparable harm,” Sauer wrote.

The solicitor general went on to claim that unless the high court “grants relief by September 2, the Executive Branch must also take extensive preliminary steps that themselves inflict irreparable harm on the United States — for instance, negotiating with foreign countries about the scope and conditions of potential assistance programs.”

“Even if the government were to prevail, backtracking on those commitments and proposing rescissions after September 2 would inflict irreparable diplomatic costs and generate needless interbranch friction,” Sauer added.

The Trump administration has requested that the justices issue a verdict on its emergency application by Sept. 2.