In an interesting 5-4 split, the Supreme Court has denied the Trump Administration’s application for a stay of a district court’s temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Administration’s effort to freeze $2 billion in funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Administration is down by one vote but hardly out in the fight with lower courts over the control of this funding.
However, there is more than meets the eye in this short, unsigned opinion.
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 acknowledged the lower court’s “frustration with the Government” as well as the “serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work.” However, he noted that this 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.”
The key here is that this was a controversial move to review a TRO, which is generally not reviewable. What is clear is that there are four justices who were still prepared to do so and would obviously be likely to grant review in the next round.
That next round would come after the hearing on the preliminary injunction, which is scheduled for March 6th.
It can then be appealed to these awaiting justices. Only four are needed to grant review, so you do the math.
The Trump Administration is on the right Path stopping this nonsense of the USAID being a conduit of Fraud and Money Laundering.. even if they lose this round of seeing $2B out the door to Never Never Land to complete the last cycle of Fraud already rendered.. they must complete the ‘retirement’ of the USAID Machine from going forward… It is a Disgrace to make so many Fraudsters filthy rich with tax payer dollars.. like the $100M for condoms for Gaza… Meanwhile our own Citizens cannot get help for hurricane and fire destructions, while SCOTUS votes to save probably 10% in actual deserved AID.
Mr. Turley, thank you for your descriptions. What I found most muddied the waters was this (in my mind – I’m not a legal professional) …
This is not just saying “no more going forward” of such disbursements, but it was for services already transacted and invoiced.
If the services were never approved in the first place, maybe there are grounds to withhold payment. But I’d rather not see our government stop paying things that may have already been agreed to previously. “Going forward” certainly reviews and holds are valid considerations. But refusing to pay something already transacted … oh I think that’s troubling. I do *emphatically* say “no more” and “hold on, lets stop and review going forward” … but let’s keep our word as a having honorable national character.
The Corrupt John Roberts and the Corrupt Amy Barrett, along with the always Corrupt Dunceocrat members of our esteemed, holy, sacred, and precious Corrupt Supreme Court, know that the Corrupt Deep State is the only authority controlling our Corrupt Deep State-controlled US Governmernt that must be obeyed and respected. The US President must only be a tool and extension of the Corrupt Deep State to ensure that the Corrupt Deep State’s interests are satisfied at the expense of the taxpayer drones and serfs. This is why we need Amy Berman Jackson and Ray Epps as President and VP, respectively, to lead us out of the disgustingly pro-America Trumpite attacks on our esteemed, holy, sacred, and precious Corrupt Deep State, and return us to a US Government firmly dedicated to nonstop wars and massive waste, fraud, corruption, abuse, and mismanagement, which are badly needed in America.
Yes, reporting of the quote can be found at the National Archives (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-15-02-0117) from January 10, 1794:
“Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes, very different from this of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not. undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
Art. III sec. 1: Ask yourself can the “congress” create an “inferior court” that has jurisdiction over the Supreme Court? It can no more create an “inferior court” having jurisdiction over the other co-equal branch of government, The Executive!
If Trump has to let the contracts continue, he should make clear that they won’t be renewed or extended and that no contracts like them will be entered into again while he is President. He should also let all the groups holding those contracts know that every one of them will be vigorously monitored to ensure every penny is spent only on what the contract specifically calls for, that wherever the contract terms are vague it will be the administration and not the contractor that decides what is permissible work to perform, that any departure from the contract terms will be referred for possible prosecution, and so on. Maybe some of the contractors will decide they don’t want their contracts after all if there will be a lot of eyes looking at everything they are doing.
From Judge Ali’s order:
“At least to date, Defendants have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid, which set off a shock wave and upended reliance interests for thousands of agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and organizations around the country, was a rational precursor to reviewing programs,…”
The expenditures were approved by Congress and, apparently, signed off by Biden. It is the Legislative Branch (Congress) that controls the purse strings, not the Executive Branch. While the approved expenditures may be foolish, why aren’t the Justices interested in the Constitutionality of Trump’s overruling of Congress, RETROACTIVELY, or questioning whether the approved expenditures fall within what Congress is permitted to spend money?
“…why aren’t the Justices interested in the Constitutionality of Trump’s overruling of Congress,….”
– c49
_______
Because Trump has not “overruled Congress” but exercised his exclusive executive power.
Because of the Constitution at Article 2 that vests all executive power, exclusively, in “a President.”
The legislative and judicial branches are vested with no aspect, facet, amount, or degree of executive power.
No legislation or adjudication that exercises executive power is constitutional – they may legislate and adjudicate but they shall not execute.
You see, the Constitution is actually quite simple and comprehensible without an “interpreter.”
Why don’t you read it?
_________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
#74. It really has to do with the huge numbers. 2 billion to one grantee doesn’t sound like much but there are thousands of grantees and USAID is AIDS.
Domestically the number is 28 billion dollars. and experimental vaccines are used at 1000 dollars per contrasted with 1 dollar in 3rd worlds. Most of the money is in Africa and it requires investigation.
No one knows the total number. Aids is still ravaging Africa and babies are being born with it. The ads for food on tv are actually children dying of AIDS. They’re reprehensible ads.
Medicines are produced cheaply in India so AIDS medications should have a high cost in 3rd worlds. Nations such as Botswana are dead from the epidemic.
It’s nearly impossible to research the numbers. The AIDS vaccines advocacy group in this case with the secretary of state being the authority is just one small grantee of nearly 7000 grantees.
It’s budgetary negligence over time and lives are the issue. The Gates Foundation gives about 200 thousand per year. The American taxpayer is world healthcare .
Dunno…too hard to research
# ^^ correct– should NOT have high costs in 3rd worlds…
At 1 dollar per vaccination that’s 2 billion vaxes.
#9.
The Federalist
“If The Supreme Court Is Going To Ignore The Constitution, Trump Should Ignore The Supreme Court”
–By: John Daniel Davidson, March 06, 2025
“…if the Supreme Court can simply disregard the Executive branch’s constitutional authority and allow it to be usurped by an inferior federal court, which is what happened, then there’s no reason the Executive branch under Trump should pay any attention to what the Supreme Court says in this case, because it’s trying to assert an authority it simply doesn’t have.”
https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/06/if-the-supreme-court-is-going-to-ignore-the-constitution-trump-should-ignore-the-supreme-court/
As a (very) old litigator looking at the TRO (knowing very little about this case except what is reported in the news), Professor Turley appears to be correct. A TRO (“temporary restraining…”) by its nature only lasts a short period. The litigants within a certain time period must conduct a hearing to determine whether the permanent relief of an Injunction is appropriate. The injunction standard is “irreparable harm.” For example, “the bridge will collapse, people will die, etc.,” if you don’t grant this relief immediately. It is not appropriate where simple money damages can be the remedy. If you kick me off the job site (for whatever reason), I can sue for damages. Money will be an adequate remedy. Equitable vs. compensatory relief. Old law school stuff.
Forgive my lack of citations, Professor.
#74. Thank you, very old, the irreparable harm is death for those needing medication. Excellent, clears it up.
#74, very old litigator, explain compensatory v. Equitable, too. You explain in succinct easily understood language. Thanks.
#74. Very old litigator, is there a problem or a potential problem in a previous congress budget signed by an outgoing president? There must be wiggle room?
From: Old litigator. Looks like Judge Nichols read my post this morning :).
QUOTE: A federal judge on Thursday declined to immediately spare U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contractors from mass firings, letting move forward a core part of the Trump administration’s effort to dismantle the agency.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols said USAID’s personal services contractors failed to prove they face irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits, denying their motion for a temporary restraining order that would have returned fired contractors to employment and allowed them to resume work.
#74. Very old litigator, VOL, Guess he did.
Thanks again.
#74 USAID grantees, contractors, will need to show vaccines and medication administered for AIDS/HIV. It’s the elephant.
Malaria is mosquito abatement and drugs.
These are life and death – irreparable harm. The worst Jesus had to deal with was syphilis and leprosy, I think.