Alito says he's 'stunned' the Supreme Court ruled against Trump over USAID's funding
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
-
The Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration over USAID's funding.
-
The decision upholds a lower court's ruling to release funds to USAID contractors.
-
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, saying he was "stunned" by the high court's ruling.
The US Supreme Court on Wednesday sided against the Trump administration and upheld a lower court's decision to force the release of nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds.
The nation's high court ruled 5-4 in rejecting the Trump administration's request to cancel the foreign aid money from the US Agency for International Development.
Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissenting opinion, wrote that he was "stunned" by the court's decision that ultimately forces the Trump administration to pay out the billions to USAID contractors.
"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," Alito wrote in his dissenting opinion.
The opinion was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
Alito wrote that the government has "shown that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm" if a lower court's decision "is not stayed."
"The Government has represented that it would probably be unable to recover much of the money after it is paid because it would be quickly spent by the recipients or disbursed to third parties," Alito wrote.
Alito added in his dissent that the Supreme Court made a "most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers."
The relief ordered by the Supreme Court, Alito said, "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," Alito wrote.
The Supreme Court did not provide details about when the funds should be released, but said that the district court judge who issued the temporary restraining order that halted the freeze of USAID funding "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."
Last month, two nonprofits — the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network — filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over President Donald Trump's executive order calling for a 90-day pause of all US foreign assistance programs.
The nonprofits argued in their lawsuit that the order was "unlawful."
District Judge Amir Ali of Washington, DC, issued a temporary restraining order in the case, which the Trump administration appealed. The administration petitioned the Supreme Court on February 26.
Lauren Bateman, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group who represents the plaintiffs, cheered the Supreme Court's decision.
"Today's ruling by the Supreme Court confirms that the Administration cannot ignore the law," Bateman said in a statement. "To stop needless suffering and death, the government must now comply with the order issued three weeks ago to lift its unlawful termination of federal assistance."
This story was updated to add more details from the ruling.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Tags
Who is online
40 visitors
"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," Alito wrote in his dissenting opinion.
Another blow to the "6 judges do whatever Trump wants" cult, but I'm sure this won't shake their faith.
We can write off Barrett.
I bet when she was a kid, she did whatever she could to please the bullies.
Oh do digress ...
Darn that Amy Coney Barrett ... she must be a DEI hire that slipped through. Justice Barrett is starting to remind me of Sandra Day O'Connor.
seems likely roberts and barrett have both finally realized they would probably outlive the melon felon ...
You are thinking of a Revolutionary War general who ironically once said:
"The greatest betrayal is when you betray yourself."
They think congress should enact laws.
Arnold has not crossed my mind for 3 score years. I am more of a fan of Mather Byles: “which is better—to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or by three thousand tyrants not a mile away?
I must unpack this bizarre criticism in the dissent.
Should it be multiple judges then? That’s not how district courts work. And there is no reason to start the case at the Circuit or SCOTUS.
Of course he has jurisdiction. It’s a federal question. Venue was not in question.
Not unchecked at all. It just went through SCOTUS review.
The government entered into contracts and money is due for services rendered. Pay your bill!
Money legally allocated by a duly elected Congress.
This may be valid, but it doesn’t make going to district court improper.