SCOTUS Refuses To Halt District Court Order That Gov’t Pay Two Billion To Foreign Aid Contractors
Roberts and Barrett side with the liberals, Alito “stunned” by ruling: “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….”
If you thought the Supreme Court would act to halt the propensity of District Court Judges to overstep their constitutional boundaries by substituting their own policy and political judgments for those of the Executive Branch — as I did — you would be wrong.
In a ruling that left Justice Alito “stunned,” Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett sided with the three liberals.
We covered the case before – Supreme Court Stays District Court Order That U.S. Pay $2 Billion To Foreign Aid Contractors By Midnight:
A well-organized and financed effort that was planned for several months to paralyze the executive branch through lawfare has unfolded in several dozen lawsuits since the Inauguration. Unfortnately, some — but not all — district court judges have overstepped their constitutional boundaries to micromanage and second-guess policy and political decisions. There is no better example than AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Dept. of State, where they obtained a crazy (I don’t use that term lightly) order that DOS pay $2 billion in invoices by midnight tonight….
When most of the day had passed without the appeals court ruling, the Trump administration filed an emergency application, repeating many of the same arguments, with the Supreme Court.
The government cannot function—and the President cannot discharge his Article II responsibilities over foreign affairs—if a district court can appoint itself the claims-processor for the federal government and second-guess the Executive Branch’s determinations on pain of contempt proceedings.
The government decision being challenged was a pause in payment pending a review as to whether the payments were owed and the work had actually been performed. The District Court did not allow that review and ordered everything to be paid — even for services not rendered or for fraud, if that turned out to be the case — with the government left with the empty remedy of trying to recoup payment. Even contractors who were not parties to the case had to be paid, for contracts the court never identified – just a sweeping pay it all order. This represents a policy determination. If contractors believed they were owed money, there is an avenue to assert claims for payment, but not in the District Court.
I compared the emerging District Court power expansion to what has taken place in Israel:
In our Morning Insurrection newsletter (subscribe here), I commented this morning:
“I was reading an excellent article at JNS about how Judges in Israel have taken almost complete control of political and policy decision making through vague concepts as to what is in the public interest. Unfortunately, it reminded me of what is happening in many U.S. District Courts where vague and broad concepts under the Administrative Procedures Act have been used in an attempt to substitute the political and policy judgments of judges for those of the executive branch. In Israel and here, the result of judicial usurpation of political and policy decisions will result in a collapse of faith in the judiciary.”
When Chief Justice Roberts issued a stay at 10 p.m. that night, I was hopeful it was a signal that the so-called conservative 6-3 majority would rein in the District Courts. But it turns out to have been wishful thinking.
In an Order issued this morning, the court – with Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh dissenting – dismissed the request to vacate the District Court order:
On February 13, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. The present application does not challenge the Government’s obligation to follow that order. On February 25, the District Court ordered the Government to issue payments for a portion of the paused disbursements—those owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District Court’s temporary restraining order—by 11:59 p.m. on February 26. Several hours before that deadline, the Government filed this application to vacate the District Court’s February 25 order and requested an immediate administrative stay. THE CHIEF JUSTICE entered an administrative stay shortly before the 11:59 p.m. deadline and subsequently referred the application to the Court. The application is denied. Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should 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. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.
Justice Alito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, issued a strong dissent:
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 answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned….
Unfortunately, a majority has now undone that stay. 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. 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….
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.
There is a constitutional crisis, but it’s not as portrayed in the media. I had too much faith in SCOTUS doing the right thing. On February 15, 2025, I clung to that hope. The Only “Constitutional Crisis” is That Democrats Lost, Now They’re Trying To Govern from the Courtroom:
This was the case in which SCOTUS could have put an end to the abuses. It refused. So we are in for an extended period of crisis.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Does this operate as a ruling on the merits, or is it just for the emergency injunction?
Appears to affect the original emergency order, which means SCOTUS hasn’t answered the question mentioned in the dissent
The ruling left Justice Alito “stunned”. You know, the Justice who was appointed by President George W. Bush, the RINO, globalist, Uniparty President, vs. Trump who appointed Justice Barrett. Go figure. God help us if Trump gets another Supreme Court nominee.
He also appointment Roberts, dipshit.
Alito was only nominated after Bush’s first choice, his White House counsel Harriet Miers, was roundly rejected. So W’s nominating instincts were pretty terrible.
Since Arky the Supreme Court is another political organization.
The Judge should have been the one in front of Congress last night telling how torunthe country.
The SCOTUS has always been political…
Ignore it
Use Biden’s student loan forgiveness as precedent
Two Billion Dollars to be paid with no proof of services rendered??? What a stab in the back! Our national debt is a loan on the nation’s future, but liberals don’t care. And SCOTUS is going to lose popular support. I still haven’t recovered from learning that Texas has no standing in questioning another state’s procedures in a national election for President. I sort of feel that this was SCOTUS telling us to shut up.
There is a contract, and the providers say the services were rendered. Does the government get to unilaterally say we don’t believe you, with no grounds for that disbelief, and aren’t going to pay you until we verify it to our satisfaction, with no telling how long that will take?
What would your opinion be if you were one of those providers who rendered the contracted services and suddenly get told that payment is suspended for who knows how long? Sure, eventually the government will pay up, but what if you go bankrupt in the meantime?
Without knowing the details in each case, none of us can know for sure what the right thing is. And the sheer scale of the total shouldn’t change that; would you say the same for any large corporation that is doing billions of dollars worth of business at any given moment? Could Walmart suspend all payments to suppliers, for several months, just because a new management wants to verify for itself that all goods were supplied as they were supposed to be? Without giving any grounds in any given case for believing that they weren’t?
The provider is never the guarantor that services have indeed been rendered as contracted.
When a bill is presented to a private company, it is first signed off by the company representative responsible for receiving the services. So the invoice is declared legitimate as the first step in the payment process.
When there is collusion to present and approve invoices for services not rendered, that is fraud and subject to prosecution. Fraud and embezzlement are usually uncovered by audits.
In no case is there an assumption that services have indeed been received. Someone has to sign off on that.
The process assumes services have been received, but the audit proves legitimacy.. is th
… Whoops! Is this not a de facto audit?
This presumes the invoice is legitimate, and accurately reflects the services or goods provided, as you said. You do not pay a questionable invoice *before* the audit is conducted, particularly when the invoice preparer faces almost no consequences for ‘passing paper’ instead of doing what they said they would do. These invoices need audited (as is happening right now) and all the screaming the left is doing only shows what they are going to find once the rock is moved and all the squirmy things underneath are exposed to sunlight.
I would say yes. Before we issue 2 billion on a person’s say-so, in light of the shenanigans already exposed, the executive should audit as good stewards of the funds Congress authorized.
I think DOJ should say they suspect some payments may involve kickbacks, bribes, fraud, etc and will have to be investigated before the funds are transferred,
Perhaps the district court order should indeed be ignored despite the supreme court’s refusal to stay it; but “BIden’s student loan forgiveness” is not a precedent. No matter how many times you repeat the lie that Biden ignored a supreme court ruling, or any court ruling, it will remain a lie. Biden’s forgiveness programs were blatantly political, and very bad policy, but were at all times lawful. He complied in full with all orders and rulings.
The Court is just a branch of government. If they truly have no limits and can expand their jurisdiction to usurp executive power, then we’re not really living in a constitutional republic anymore. It’s some sort of warped judicially controlled version of our republic. To restore constitutional order, the president should, respectfully, refuse to comply. Let the courts try to force compliance. They forced a constitutional crisis, it’s on them now.
District courts are not a government branch but are creations of Congress. We may be at a point where Congress will have to uncreate them.
We don’t have to uncreate all lower federal courts. Instead:
1. Congress should abolish the D.C. Circuit. There should not be an overwhelmingly leftist court, with overwhelmingly leftist jurors, that hears most cases brought by and/or pertaining to the government, in which conservatives, and conservative ideas, have no chance of receiving a fair hearing. In my view, the D.C. Circuit, as currently constituted, offends the concept of due process, a concept which traces its roots back to Magna Carta.
At a bare minimum, give any defendant sued in the D. C. Circuit an absolute right at the outset of any case to change that case’s venue to the District in which that defendant is domiciled.
2. Congress should pass a law restricting the injunctive powers of lower Federal Courts. District court injunctions should only be effective in that district. Circuit court injunctions should only be effective in that circuit. Only the Supreme Court can issue injunctions that are effective nationwide.
3. Congress should pass a law forbidding any Court from enjoining or interfering with an Executive Branch decision to spend or not spend “allocated” funds–funds which Congress indicates are to be spent for a specific purpose, but where the details of the spending are left to the Executive. Courts should have the right to issue a decision requiring the spending of funds only if Congress has specifically required that certain funds be expended for specific purposes, so that the expenditure involves a purely ministerial, non-discretionary act on the part of the Executive.
They are a government branch. Executive departments are also creations of congress, but are a government branch.
The Constitutionis quite clear:
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall
not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
So you agree with me. The district courts are in the judicial branch of government, not the legislative branch as Longplay imagines.
The three branches of government are co-equal. None is subordinate to another. The purpose of the court is to settle legal disputes, not policy disputes. The court cannot subordinate the executive branch to itself. Decisions that impose upon the sole authority of the executive branch should simply be ignored.
Greasy and politically-minded Roberts ruling as he did is no surprise. This guy revealed his capricious and unprincipled “jurisprudence” with his feckless Obamacare vote. But, Barrett is turning into a major disappointment.
We have known what Roberts has been like for years. My more recent prediction that the liberals would eventually find Barrett a suitable replacement for RBG is coming true. Trump did it to himself, along with many other poor appointments in his first term.
Let them enforce it – and pull the US marshals from DC judges. They are needed for border support
This actually scares me. This failure to act and signal of support on the
part ofSCOTUS toward overstepping judges could very well signal the end of our system of government.
This will be unpopular so be it. If the order is to pay out monies for work already completed then it is reasonable that the government be required to do it. In general I agree with Alito’s dissent.
I think its more holding those payments to ensure the work was actually done (checks being carried out). What the Judge is saying is yeah nah, you gotta pay out regardless of whether it was done and done to an acceptable standard. Thats not a great place to be in.
That depends on the contract. If the government signed a contract stipulating it would be paid within X days, write the check. Government contracts can be lucrative but they can also take longer to pay than non-government contracts. Small businesses can’t afford to “float” the government for months before payment. This is part of the reason why a lot of businesses charge government more than they charge the private sector for the same work.
Do you deny reasonable time to audit the work for completion and quality as is standard practice. That is the question at hand. Refer the bills to an IG for review prior to payment.
What is a reasonable time? This is not the government questioning a specific invoice, with grounds for suspecting that it’s not kosher. This is the government saying we’re not paying anyone, no matter how high the quality of the goods or the work, and no matter how long it’s already been owing. There are bound to be providers who will be irreparably injured by such a sudden decision. There are also bound to be fraudsters who will be caught by such an audit.
Reasonable time would obviously vary depending on the complexity of the contract. Asking the IG to independently review these contracts should suffice. There are levels to consider as to not only was the work performed adequately but also whether the contract itself was fraudulent in origin – payoffs to Stacey Abrams etc. The “gold bricks” thrown out at the end of the Biden term should result in criminal charges for some.
I think it is reasonable to audit provided the time frame is reasonsble.
Doesn’t that depend on what kind of work, is it legitimate public work? Is the entity a Dem shill front?
There is no “right” under contract law to enforce abuse and fraud. In fact, fraudulence is not only criminal, but unenforceable under contract law. Redirecting money from an intended purpose—like feeding foreign poor—and seeing it wind up in the hands of leftist political organizations (often back here in the US) isn’t fraud, I don’t know what is.
But where’s the evidence that that has happened, in every case? It seems very unlikely. And those providers who have been honest would suffer serious harm, in some cases irreparable.
Pay %1.00 per month
In pennies.
That might be a reasonable answer, in most cases.
Barret seems to be siding with the liberals on these types of cases. That leaves Roberts free to go with Barret to create a majority. If she went the other way, so would the very political Roberts.
Disappointing.
Methinks that you have that backasswards,..Barret is Robert’s little kiss up and will do whatever Roberts tells her to do
Roberts has never been a “conservative” his decisions are based on how he thinks the decision will be seen by History and how it will affect his legacy as Chief Justice. He tries to keep everyone Happy and because of that makes poor decisions.
Sandra Day O’Barrett strikes again.
I knew during the hearings she was a disaster when she was fawned over by no other than Feinstein
We need one of the democratic “sick” SC justices to step down
Please dear Lord
And Roberts
Oh that would be great
Slow walk the payments.
Or just not make them.
That would likely lead to their bankruptcy, yea.
That’s pretty common already. I really dislike government contracts and I try to avoid them. When you owe the government money, they want it that instant. When they owe you money, slow walking the payment is common. Currently, I only have two local government contracts and they know when I invoice, they better pay promptly or I will cut them off. We have an understanding that works.
Oooh look the administrative state (courts) protecting the administrative state. Who’d of thunk it?
AS I stated before
Amy is a Christian Socialist Democrat
while they have that pro life “attitude”
when it comes to a socialist economy they see it as a
wwjd..moment
they are socialists
Call me sexist or any name you want, but the moral of this story is that no conservative should nominate a woman to the SC ever again.
Both of them almost instantly turned into, AT BEST, squishy left-leaning ‘moderates’.
This ruling is insane. Mostly because, just like Coward Roberts always does, he simply REFUSES to actually rule, and instead just punts it back to the lower court praying that Somebody Else does something so he never has to actually rule.
There are two conversations you can’t have yet in conservative and christian circles and those are feminism and Muslims. Western politics have become ruled by the exception rather than the rule and emotion rather than reason. It’s our down fall.
Being a woman has nothing to do with it.
There are innumerable male, GOP president-appointed disappointments who have sat or are currently sitting on the SCOTUS bench, including Blackmun, Kennedy, Souter and Roberts.
Banana Republic.
Pay them in Pennies.
The real question is whether the Executive Branch—charged with oversight of the department—is able to halt activities when it believes there has been fraud and abuse, at least as long as it takes to dig deeper. What SCOTUS wrongly did was let slide an erroneous injunction saying the Executive Branch can’t do that. Ridiculous! This travesty of a ruling actually bars the Executive branch from seeing that the law is being faithfully executed—a duty which the Constitution specifically says is the Executive Branch’s function.
next SCOTUS opening
the Federalist Society can just STFU
Ms. Barrett and M<r./ Kavanaugh,
Those of us who worked so hard to get Trump elected were the ones who fought to get you two (plus Justice Gorsuch) on SCOTUS. You two are becoming a massive disappointment. Shame on you. If you were up for an election, you would lose. If you’re scared, retire from the court.
You actions are a HUGE disappointment.
Kavanaugh didn’t vote with majority, he joined the dissent with Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch.
If that traitor Roberts wants that payment made, let him make it out of his own checkbook
The days of “go along to get along” are over for at least a generation. We the People want to stop the graft, grift and support of dead people as well as support of our enemies. Yes, enemies exist,. They must be dealt with.
This was a poor choice. SCOTUS could have used the opportunity to slap down more broadly the District CT abuse of TRO to create what was effectively an injuction but without room for appeal. They didn’t, instead creating an odd, mostly toothless rebuke to the District CT that will encourage more shenanigans. Sooner or later either Roberts or ACB gonna have to stop half measures and incrementalism in favor of more broad rulings to stop the nickel and dime law fare v Executive Branch. If not they create conditions for more of it and that means more cases piling up requesting SCOTUS action which if they decline to hear or keep allowing encroachment into Executive power is gonna and up with the Executive Branch telling them to pound sand. We should all wish to avoid that.
They are first lawyers and second judges “nickel and dime law fare” is their bread and butter. You’re wishing the scorpion won’t sting the frog. It’s their nature. They finally ruled on DACA long after Trump was gone and yet nothing has happened.
Not exactly. I’m hopeful that scorpion understands the frog is very close to building up an immunity to the toxins along with not just a willingness to toss the scorpion off but a growing eagerness to shove him off to sink or swim on his own… Then there’s the missing element in the analogy; the People who are likewise growing intolerant of law fare shenanigans and when they and their members HoR/Senate put their ‘foot down’ it will squash the scorpion. Inferior courts are a creation of Congress and can be destroyed by them as easily as they were created and not jack squat the Judiciary can do about it but bend over and take it.
What the hell is wrong with Barrett? She’s turning out to be a really bad pick. Roberts was already a lost cause for the most part, but I am smh at Barrett.
There are not many cases where a liberal was put on the court who later turned out to be conservative.
Isn’t the job of the supreme court to defend the Constitution against drift or usurpation by the legislature, the executive and lower courts? If so it’s the easiest job in the world, look at the case then the constitution and check to be sure A does not violate B? Why is this so hard? Easy job, one word opinions yes/no, on the links by 11:30. They exist to defend the Constitution not to make speeches. Do your job and shut up you’re not social engineers. If your job description has escaped you perhaps you’re just too stupid to work there???
Professor Jacobson:
As I understand it, there are three EQUAL branches of Government.
Cannot we correct the Judicial?
It has been clearly in order several times.
Mark
“the moron’ actually can take credit for a couple of things the first time. The appointment of Barret, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch. Even though I am sure they personally detest Trump, thy rule by law.
the second was the vaccine. The ironic part was that most of uninformed boogerpick cult wouldn’t get ‘the jab’ because some kook on the internet said it was dangerous. In between bites from their big Macs and working on their chaw. LAFFRIOT
The level of my disappointment in Ms. Amy’s behavior does not have a word to describe how high this disappointment is.
Amy, millions of women worked so someones as gifted as you would be able to haver opportunities to use your gifts. Sorry, baby-sitting people and terming up w/ the girls is not wise. You know what you have – we the people need you to use it. As a nation we cannot continue with sloppy, untraceable accounting and wasted funds. We cannot continue with the boy and girl transfer issues. We cannot or the entire world will pay.
Didn’t the Heritage Foundation recommend Coney-Barrett?
Time to cut off their influence. Some group owns her, just like Roberts.
Can someone please tell me what the constitutional issue is? Because I haven’t heard one from anybody. This is simply contractual disputes that should be settled in some claims court, not SCOTUS.
If some contractor thinks he did the work and Trump disagrees or thinks there was fraud, the contractor takes the govt to claims court and argues contract law. If Trump wants to cancel a contract Biden signed and the contractor thinks the contract can’t be cancelled or Trump didn’t follow the rules to cancel, then he can take the govt to claims court and argue contract law.
But where is the constitutional question? President routinely cancel contracts and dispute whether work was completed. These aren’t constitutional question. Where is the constitutional question?
I’m not well informed about the legal issue but methinks the courts will always circle the wagon against any challenge to rule by judiciary when congress abdicated its sworn responsibility the courts stepped, and likes the power