U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump to withhold $4B in foreign aid in case in which ABA is a plaintiff
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid funds while the federal government awaits a decision by Congress on its request to rescind the appropriation. (Photo by Aaron M. Sprecher/The Associated Press)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid funds while the federal government awaits a decision by Congress on its request to rescind the appropriation.
The administration had sought to rescind the appropriation using procedures established in the Impoundment Control Act. In its Sept. 26 order, the Supreme Court said the government “at this early stage” had made a sufficient showing that plaintiffs weren’t entitled to sue under the law and that they aren’t entitled to mandamus relief.
The court also said the harms alleged to the administration’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by the plaintiffs. The court added that its decision “should not be read as a final determination on the merits.”
The case had reached the U.S. Supreme Court on the emergency docket. “The relief granted by the court today reflects our preliminary view, consistent with the standards for interim relief,” the Supreme Court said.
The American Bar Association is one of the plaintiffs in the two consolidated lawsuits before the Supreme court. The association said in a Feb. 11 lawsuit that it has had “tens of millions of dollars” in federal funding frozen for foreign rule-of-law and human-rights program as a result of the Trump administration’s freeze on funds.
The Impoundment Control Act gives Congress 45 days to act on a request to rescind funds after receiving a request by the federal government. If Congress doesn’t act by the end of the fiscal year on Tuesday, the funding would expire, the Trump administration argued in its request for emergency relief.
According to the New York Times, the case “presents an untested legal effort by the Trump administration to essentially run out the clock on the fiscal year.” SCOTUSblog and Reuters also have coverage while How Appealing lists additional articles.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan had argued the Supreme Court should not have acted on the emergency application because the issues represent “uncharted territory” for the Supreme Court and the stakes are high.
“In a few weeks’ time—when we turn to our regular docket—we will decide cases of far less import with far more process and reflection,” Kagan wrote.
The plaintiffs had sued over the government’s plan to withhold $12 billion in foreign aid funds. The federal government has paid “virtually all” of $2 billion in invoices for foreign aid work already performed, the federal government said in its Supreme Court application for emergency relief.
The case was currently before the Supreme Court because of an order by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali that obligates the federal government to spend $10.5 billion in foreign aid funds. The government said it planned to spend $6.5 billion of that amount, leaving $4 billion at issue.
The court ruled in two consolidated cases. They are Trump v. Global Health Council and U.S. Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
