Justice Samuel Alito issued a scathing dissent Wednesday after the Supreme Court declined to block a lower court’s order forcing the Trump administration to immediately pay $2 billion in foreign aid, a move he said left him “stunned.”
The 5-4 order effectively allowed the payments to proceed despite the administration’s efforts to freeze the funds. Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, condemned the decision as a failure to check “judicial hubris.” He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
Recommended Stories
- Supreme Court rejects Trump on USAID foreign aid freeze
- Supreme Court looks set to reject Mexico’s $10 billion gun challenge
- Supreme Court limits EPA authority in San Francisco sewage dispute
“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?” Alito wrote. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”
The dispute arose after U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, blocked the Trump administration’s 90-day freeze on foreign aid funding in response to a lawsuit from nonprofit groups. Ali’s Feb. 25 order gave the administration just over a day to comply, prompting the Supreme Court to step in with a temporary pause issued by Chief Justice John Roberts. The court’s Wednesday decision lifted that stay, requiring the payments to resume immediately.
Alito warned that the ruling set a dangerous precedent, arguing that Ali’s expedited mandate abused judicial power. “A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance,” Alito wrote. “Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them.”
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, commended Alito, calling on his X followers to repost part of this dissent “in the comments if Justice Alito speaks for you today.”
Post this ????️ in the comments if Justice Alito speaks for you today:
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) March 5, 2025
“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? The… https://t.co/PhTaC34heE
“Justice Alito’s dissent was characteristically spot-on,” Lee said.
Jonathan H. Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, wrote for Reason that the dissent signals “this is far from the end of the case.”
“Indeed, since four justices dissented here, it is abundantly clear that there will be four votes for certiorari once the Department of Justice files a petition. In other words, stay tuned,” Adler said.
The majority’s decision to allow Ali’s unfreezing of foreign spending dollars drew an even larger uproar in the conservative judicial advocacy community.
Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, has been a stalwart voice against “activist” judges restraining several of Trump’s executive actions and has warned a handful of them that they “should be impeached.”
With the Supreme Court's refusal today to rein in DC activist judges sabotaging the President's Article II executive powers, Congress must step up.@Article3Project is drafting proposed legislation to bring much-needed reforms to the DC District Court.
— ???????? Mike Davis ???????? (@mrddmia) March 5, 2025
Gloves are coming off.
In response to this decision, Davis said his group is “drafting proposed legislation to bring much-needed reforms to the DC District Court.”
The Trump administration argued that the lower court’s directive created an “untenable payment plan” and undermined the president’s authority under Article II to regulate federal spending.
SUPREME COURT REJECTS TRUMP ON USAID FOREIGN AID FREEZE
Court filings revealed that the administration was moving to terminate more than 90% of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s foreign aid awards, affecting nearly 5,800 contracts.
Ali is expected to hold a hearing Thursday on a preliminary injunction request that could bring the case back to the Supreme Court as an emergency appeal soon.