The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) ain't dead yet. The Supreme Court ruled late Wednesday that the Trump administration must pay almost $2 billion for work commissioned by the embattled agency that has become the poster child in the campaign by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk against waste and abuse in federal spending.
In this instance, the funds are payment for work that has already been completed.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court denied a request by the administration to lift a lower-level order by Washington, DC, Judge Amir Ali, a Joe Biden appointee, that had directed the State Department and USAID to make the payments.
The administration argued that freezing the funds was necessary to review whether the funds disbursed by federal agencies complied with Trump’s executive orders aimed at eliminating “social engineering policies,” The Hill reported.
The Court asked Ali to “clarify what obligations the government must fulfill to ensure compliance” with the Temporary Restraining Order he had issued previously.
George W. Bush appointee John Roberts, the high court’s chief justice, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, sided with the majority.
It was not a good ruling, Gerard Filitti, senior counsel for The Lawfare Project, said on American Family Radio Thursday.
“Where the majority went, what they looked at, was the wrong issue,” Filittie told show host Jenna Ellis. “Roberts and Barrett are kind of the swing votes on this court. Even though it’s 6-3 [in terms of justices believed to be conservative] it seems not to be,” he added.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh sided with the administration.
A second chance, perhaps
The issue could return to the Supreme Court.
The case began when two contractors – the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council – sued the administration for spending cuts to USAID because it left them holding the bag for work already done, according to National Public Radio (NPR).
DAI Global, an international development organization; Journalism Development Network; HIAS, a Jewish American nonprofit that provides aid and assistance for refugees; and other groups have since joined the lawsuit, according to Reuters.
“After the judge issued the initial order there were more issues because Trump cut spending and didn’t just pause the spending. The whole case has become more complicated. It started pretty simply as groups that had done work and wanted to be paid,” Filitti said.
Ali is expected Thursday to hold a hearing on the groups’ motion for a preliminary injunction. If he grants the injunction – perhaps as early as today – that would suspend the freeze on foreign-assistance funding, according to SCOTUSBlog.com.
That would also pave the way for the issue to return to the Supreme Court as an emergency appeal again soon.
In an executive order in January, President Trump ordered a halt to the distribution of foreign-aid funds so that federal agencies can ensure that those funds are only disbursed in ways that are “fully aligned with” Trump’s foreign policy. Following that order, Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered a freeze on all foreign-aid programs funded by the State Department and the USAID.
U.S. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued before the Court Wednesday that Ali’s order denied the executive branch’s power to make decisions about foreign aid spending risks placing USAID in a court-run receivership, SCOTUSBlog.com reported.
The Court majority was looking at whether the administration should have been given time to review the payments or whether it was obligated to fulfill them because the work had been completed. The minority was looking at the other issue, at whether Ali had jurisdiction, Filitti said.
“If the Court had focused on the issue of whether one single U.S. district court judge could enact a single sweeping order that stopped or required the entire U.S government to do something, I think the outcome would have been different,” he stated.
Instead, said Filitti, the High Court “punted on this and did not want to yet weigh in on the larger issue. They decided this is not the right case for that. I don’t think this is the Supreme Court signaling this is the way they will rule on all cases. I just believe they’re signaling they will hold off until the right case comes along.”
Trump: If you turn the money loose, it’s gone
In this case, there’s an alternative view that says the government could sue to get the money back if it finds the work has not been performed, Filitti said. But Trump, he noted, disagrees with that premise.
“Trump's argument essentially is that if the government pays this money without investigating whether the work actually has been completed or whether it matches a priority that should be paid, we'll never see the money again. The taxpayer money is gone.
“The judge here didn't buy that argument and basically said, ‘No, the work was done, and the people have to be paid.’”
