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.
“How would you feel if you had a contract . . .”
That is nonsense. Foreign welfare is *not* a contract. It is a gift or grant of money looted from the American taxpayer.
This demand to be paid is a declaration to the American taxpayer:
“How dare you not pay us money that we looted from you.”
#74. Sam, you were born at night. Last night…
there is a comment in the original article from Madison ” I cannot undertake to place my finger on that article in the Constitution which allows the congress to spend on objects of benevolence the monies of their constituents ”.
I went to multiple browsers Safari, DuckduckGo, Bing. They all said that statement didn’t exist. I had to use an uncensored browser and guess what..there it was. Remember, tech can still censor and you can’t believe everything you see and dont see on the internet. Thank you Mr Turley.
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
#74. And 100s of years LATER, people choose their own charitable donations.
Rand Paul read Davy Crocketts response to Congress over this very matter a few years back. It’s still floating around, they’re quick to give what is not theirs to give.
Free Derek Chauvin
Try using GROK on XAI- you will get an unbiased response
According to Grok
The quote you’re referencing is closely aligned with James Madison’s views, but it’s not an exact verbatim statement from a single document. Instead, it’s a paraphrase or a popularized summary of his position, particularly from his writings and statements opposing broad federal spending on discretionary or benevolent projects.
Madison expressed this sentiment most clearly in his veto message as president on March 3, 1817, when he rejected a bill for federal funding of internal improvements (like roads and canals). He argued that the Constitution did not grant Congress a general power to spend on such projects, which could be seen as “objects of benevolence” in the sense of benefiting specific regions or groups. Here’s a key excerpt from that veto message:
“I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction… I have no option but to withhold my signature from it.”
While this doesn’t use the exact phrasing “I cannot undertake to place my finger on that article in the Constitution,” it captures the essence of the idea you mentioned. Madison consistently maintained that Congress’s spending power was limited to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, and he was skeptical of stretching the General Welfare Clause to cover benevolent or local projects.
The specific wording you cited—”I cannot undertake to place my finger on that article in the Constitution which allows the Congress to spend on objects of benevolence the monies of their constituents”—seems to be a modern restatement, possibly popularized by libertarian or strict constructionist thinkers to summarize Madison’s stance. It’s often attributed to him in discussions about federal overreach, but no primary source matches it precisely. For instance, a similar sentiment appears in debates over a 1796 bill to aid victims of a fire in Savannah, Georgia, where Madison reportedly questioned Congress’s authority to appropriate funds for such charity, though the exact quote isn’t documented there either.
So, Madison didn’t say those exact words, but they’re a fair encapsulation of his constitutional philosophy. Does that clarify things for you, or were you looking for a deeper dive into a specific context?
So true. I LOVE GROK 3 on Xai. It’s literally fantastic and quick. I entered the Madison “quote” and it gave me a lot of info. It closed with this statement: “Your quote suggests a skepticism about federal overreach-care to elaborate on what prompted it? I can dig deeper into the historical context or the modern debate if you’d like.” No kidding! Is that tremendous or what?
Yes, it’s there. https://x.com/i/grok/share/qq7m9JclXBofNps2l4nvM3ruE
As the United States of America is facing an insurmountable debt crisis, cannot the President of the United States of America declare a financial emergency? Under this declaration, I would have to believe he would then have the legal authority to specifically target all budgetary constraints. This is not some made up crisis, America is on a path to economic collapse. The Congress has failed to produce a balanced budget for how long? The last Administration poured gasoline on the fire by robbing the nation. It is time to act and act now with the utmost care to not throw out the baby with the bath water!
No more wars!
President Trump approved $8.4 trillion in borrowing over a decade.
(https://www.crfb.org/issue-area/budgets-projections)
So opposition to illegal immigration is xenophobic, but you just don’t know where Elon Musk’s loyalties lie because he immigrated legally and he’s “only” been a citizen for 22 years?
Were the American Founders xenophobic when they passed the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802 (four iterations for maximal clarity)?
Looks like xenophobia is fully and irrefutably constitutional.
We can no longer trust the SCOTUS because they have become either corrupted or infected.
more likely roberts is being blackmailed by the CIA and barret is,was and always will be a liberal she was one of Trumps worst decisions/ nominations ever made
Agreed
I’ll second it.
Amy Comey has foreign minority children and loyalties to Catholic faith and liberal position on immigrants. She is favorable to NGO’s that promote her core values and large sums of USAID $ that Trump is trying to claw back!
has foreign minority children and loyalties to Catholic faith…
And this is bad because: …..
Too many women
As a woman . . . I completely agree!
Corrupt
You’ve got that right! Justice Thomas is the most corrupt justice of them all. And do t get me started on Alito.
SLAVA UKRAINE!
Your arrogance is second to your arrogance. And your low IQ is on parade for everybody to laugh at.
Are you Ukrainian? This is an issue for American citizens to debate and decide… not really interested in the rest of the world weighing in! It’s like people who are themselves parenting poorly yet want to tell you how it’s done
Corrupted! They are all in line to receive largess from USAID, either directly or from a family member.
There’s one immigrant that the democrats don’t like. Elon Musk.
Justice for America
Free Derek Chauvin
Agreed. The autopsy found NO life threatening injuries. The autopsy DID find 11 ng/mL fentanyl and levels much lower than that have been fatal. The average lethal dose in one study was 9 ng/mL. It also found an enlarged heart and up to 90% blockage in some arteries. He was also recovering from Covid. The ‘knee on neck’ was a knee on upper shoulder taught by the police department and illustrated in their training manual. An officer who testified that it was never used was photographed using it in another case well before Floyd died. The picture was published in the police annual book. Chauvin didn’t kill Floyd judging by the autopsy.
D.J. Daniels is hilarious. He’s the 13-year-old kid that President Trump made an honorary USSS agent last night. “I rub bald heads for luck in case you didn’t know.”
https://x.com/Bannons_WarRoom/status/1897424396974776540
It was impressive when President Trump read the list of bizarre schemes the Democrats were rushing to spend billions funding.
I wonder what the public impression will be if the President begins reading this:
“These are the insane and obscene things the COURTS are compelling us to fund with your billions:
**
**
**
**”
Should play well in disaster areas…
Respect for the courts, now sinking, will go under water.
Its more impressive that you believe everything Trump said.
What’s really impressive is that you think we care what you think.
There. He said it.
It would be impressive if you can prove him wrong!
feel free to prove anything he said false
“John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
– President Andrew Jackson
_______________________________
If the executive power is vested in the executive branch, how is the judicial branch going to enforce its unconstitutional exercise of executive power and unconstitutional decision?
The executive branch appears to control the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshall’s Office through the Department of Justice, and the U.S. Military.
President Andrew Jackson had the correct response to the court’s over reach back then. It could serve as a way forward for President Trump, if he wanted to do so. I’ve got this feeling that 47 is giving the Judiciary enough rope to hang themselves via their bad decisions not based on the Constitution. Just saying.
Democrats would love another bite at the impeachment apple. Could they get a couple pro-court attorneys to go along. They get pretty brainwashed in law school when it comes to going along with whatever a judge does..
Lincoln started an undeclared war, imposed martial law, and suspended habeas corpus.
Did one of you brilliant attorneys say, “Precedent?”
Lincoln didn’t start the war, but in any case there has never been a requirement that a war must be declared.
Lincoln had foreign troops illegally deployed on the territory of a sovereign foreign nation.
In South Carolina, in the Confederate States of America, at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, Confederate troops dutifully fired on invading forces in Fort Sumter in South Carolina’s Charleston Harbor.
______________________
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11
The Congress shall have Power To…declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;….
Please lets not take the delusion to far.
Fort Sumter was a legitimately established federal fort.
Even if you accep the right of south carolina to seceed,
The soldiers at Fort Sumter did not invade, and They were attacked – not the other way arround.
No one was hurt, and it was within SC territory. A dust-up like that today and the Prez says, “No harm. Let’s resolve this peacefully and move on.”
Firing on fort Sumter was as stupid as Japan bombing Pearl Harbor. If the South had just left it alone and continued to govern the rest of their territory, Britain and France would have given them diplomatic recognition and so would the other powers. Lincoln did not have the political support to attack the seceding states until they attacked the fort. He even declared that he would not use force first.
It was a brilliant military move that turned a near certain win into a near certain defeat. The near certain win would have cost no lives. Once the Confederate States had diplomatic recognition of all the great powers, they would eventually get US recognition and they could have worked out what to do about the US forts in the South. They were no threat to the South and no use to the North unless the South attacked one of them.
I just noticed that the MSM has slightly changed the narrative. AOC was gaslighting her interviewer and when the interviewer asked a question that she had to give an definite answer to, she went into a long cackle and just started gaslighting again, just like Kamala Harris.
AOC is ready to run in 2028!
STOP with the “gaslighting.” You don’t even know what that means, as in an elaborate protracted scheme intended to cause another to believe they are mentally unstable.
The “Cackle” is the Democrats “Tell”.
English is the official language of the United States.
Certainly, most Americans do not need an interpreter for the English language.
Most of those equivocating through the use of “interpret” are more accurately desirous of circumventing the law by de facto amendment to the Constitution.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
interpret
verb
1: to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
2: to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : construe
3: to represent by means of art : bring to realization by performance or direction
intransitive verb
: to act as an interpreter between speakers of different languages
A majority of us speak English. We are not about to learn another language. Even if Trump didn’t make it the official language, it is the official language because this is what we use in our everyday lives. Learn another language. Most of our public school students can’t read or write at grade level.
What every taxpayer should be asking is: How much does it cost taxpayers to provide a bunch of interloping border jumping job thieves everything in Spanish?
$Millions
As the President Trump has the power to require that the executive branch conduct US business in english.
he can not make that law.
He can not make it last beyond his presidency.
But he can make it the conduct of the executive for the newxt 4 years.
Before learning another language you’d best learn this one, since you seem not to understand the word “official”.
You and I using something in our everyday lives can’t make it official.
Neither can a statement by the president. No law authorizes him to do so.
Would be great if Congress can implement these changes into law! We have an opportunity now to make America great for years to come by doing so! A rare moment for Congress to memorialize solid American principles while Republicans have majorities!
You speak English and you do not need an “interpreter” when you read the clear English language of the U.S. Constitution.
“Shall not be abridged…infringed.”
The Democrats will probably make Ebonics the official language of the United States if they get back in.
Pay your bills and a District Court Judge wont have to make that decision for him. Deadbeats do things like this.
OK, time for Trump state that fraud or corruption are suspected and slow the payments down until each contractor can be reviewed and investigated. That ought to be withing the executive’s powers.
# 😂 one hopes so, old fish
If you read the decision, this has nothing to do with paying bills that have already come due. Do you think that if Biden gave money to some radical NGO that hasn’t been disbursed that he now has to keep sending the money?
Yes, it has everything to do with paying bills that have already come due. The court order in dispute applies only to payment for goods and services that have already been provided under a binding contract.
So a breach of contract case made it to the Supreme Court?
Seems like night court.
Commentaries don’t make this clear, but, if true, that explains Roberts’s and Barrett’s votes.
# USAID is under the direct authority of the secretary of state , Marco Rubio and it includes policy. USAID needs to ask him. Maybe invite him for cake and coffee. Wear a suit and be there on time.
I can hear Kagan now, I just don’t see you have standing (USAID).
# ^^ and more…this is money for AIDS globally and HIV vaccines. Bill and Melinda Gates are contributors and its a 5 star charity. Apparently it’s administering experimental vaccines? Malawi? It’s 2 billion for combating AIDS including drugs for treatment and research.
See Secretary Rubio for explanation.
It may be similar to the hysteria and Yosemite in California. There are 500 employees and 10 have been cut. That leaves 490 employees to cover.
# ^^^ and…it may be the huge donation of 2 billion. Gates donates 600 thousand over 3 years for instance.
After a few minutes of attempting to find a total budget for the vaccine coalition it became murky. A 2016 budget was still in the millions.
This could be a case of throwing gold bars off the Titanic at the last minute. It’s really doubtful 2 billion is for work already done IMHO.
Jonathan: DJT woke up this morning to a smackdown by SCOTUS over his unconstitutional refusal to pay $2 billion in USAid funds. It was a 5-4 decision apparently led by Chief Justice Roberts. DJT is apparently having second thoughts about patting Roberts on the shoulder after the address to Congress last night!
This decision was a rebuke to DJT who thinks he can cut off funding for USAid for work authorized by Congress. It was also support for the sanctity of contracts. If you sign a contract to perform work for the federal government, you perform that work, and there is no evidence of fraud or abuse, you are entitled to get paid. The decision by the SC was also a reminder that when the President pledges to make sure the laws are “faithfully executed” that oath of office means something!
As has happened in some past decisions of the Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett proved again to be the swing vote in this case. Sam Alito led the dissent. He was “stunned” that District Judge Ali would exercise jurisdiction and compel DJT to follow the law. Alito and the right-wing majority on the Court think a President has unlimited power to decide which laws to follow and which to ignore–like the Administrative Procedures and Impoundment Acts. Alito endorses the idea that a President is a virtual King or dictator. And your column is an indication you support that bizarre distortion of the Constitution.
At least for now the SC is unwilling to endorse the views of the you and the right-wing minority on the Court. That’s a hopeful sign.
“DJT woke up this morning to a smackdown by SCOTUS over his unconstitutional refusal to pay $2 billion in USAid funds.”
Aparently you can not read.
SCOTUS decided 5-4 not to vacate a stupid TRO – because SCOTUS never reviews TROs at this stage.
The Likelyhood of Baby Judge Amir prevailing in the long run is NEAR zero.
Turley CORRECTLY in a prior article advised Congress NOT to impeach judges.
This however is the perfect instance for impeachment.
Contra your Claim – Judge Amir is not preventing a violation of the constitution – he is CAUSING one.
As Turley notes – the result of this decision will be spending $2B in funds that are highly unlikely to ACTUALLY be properly authorized by congress.
If you have the legislation that authroized Trnas Opera’s in Columbia – please provide it.
If you can not – then YOU should be encouraging your congressmen to impeach Judge Amir.
Because he is engaged in Judicial THEFT.
“This decision was a rebuke to DJT who thinks he can cut off funding for USAid for work authorized by Congress.”
You are correct – Trump can not do that – but ONLY congress has standing – and they are not in court.
Further – Who said this was actually authorized by Congress ? Those of you on the left have elided that determination repeatedly in all these lawsuits.
Alito is correct – there is ZERO possibility this act by Judge Amir survives on appeal.
But Money that has been dispersed can NOT easily be clawed back.
Judge Amir is egregiously violating the constitution.
TWO Parties have the constitutional authority to determine whether specific spending was authorized by Congress.
The congress, and the president. If and ONLY if they disagree, Then and only THEN do the courts get to review the funding in question and the statutes in question and determine whether Congress or the president is correct.
But rational thought eludes you.
These funds are for work already completed. The judge correctly ruled it was not Trump’s call to withhold those funds.
How is the judge violating the Constitution? You provide nothing to support the assertion.
Alito cannot justify his position either, which is why he is in the minority in the decision.
“Further – Who said this was actually authorized by Congress ?”
The plaintiffs and Congress and signed by president Biden.
These funds are for work already completed.
That seems to be the left-wing talking point on this blog, but nobody provides evidence. Kind of like that video where all the Dem senators are reading from the same script, word-for-word.
County me skeptical.
Did you bother reading the damn thing?
“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.”
What part of that is unclear?
So the judicial branch just usurped the exclusive executive power of the executive branch and exercised it?
The judicial branch is not vested with any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power.
In this case the judge usurped the jury and violated due process as well.
This is garbage in so many ways.
The part where there was a hearing to determine whether the allegation that the Judge bought hook line and sinker was correct.
Allegations are not facts until they are established at trial by a jury.
Judges do NOT get to decide questions of FACT prior to trial
They do in New York.
Milhouse, it is unclear what you are trying to say. The statement you quote has an error.
Let’s make it simple. I installed a gate in front of my house. The gate is finished but I don’t pay the guy because it doesn’t work correctly or it was the wrong gate installed. What happens next? Barring a settlement the case goes to trial.
It seems the district court judge thought he was judge, jury and prosecutor.
The issue is NOT whether this was for work already completed.
The issue is that is a CLAIM – not a FACT. It becomes a fact after there is a trial and a jury determins that and numerous other issues of FACT.
Nor is this the only instance in which this judge poretended that he could decide issues of FACT in pretrial motions without a trial or jury
If foreigners completed they work without getting the US money, they didn’t need the money.
“These funds are for work already completed. The judge correctly ruled it was not Trump’s call to withhold those funds.”
Because you say so ?
Regardless your claim is OBVIOUSLY FALSE.
The judge granted a TRO based on a filed motion. There were no hearings. There were no findings of FACT.
What you are stating is a CLAIM, not a proven fact.
“How is the judge violating the Constitution? You provide nothing to support the assertion.”
I clearly pointed out how. Aparently you can not read.
If there is a specific plantif that has not been paid THEY can file a case, and there will be a hearing and if they have a valid contract that was breached they will be paid, including legal feees and damages AFTER a hearing in which the actual contract, the work completed, and any additional damages are all determined by presentation of EVIDENCE.
TRO’s are NOT EVER granted in equity cases because there is no irrepairable harm.
If the CLAIM being made hear is PROVEN in court to be correct – the plantiff will be made whole.
If there is damage to that plantiff from pausing payment for 30 days – the plantif can made a damage claim and they will get paid more.
But in this case YOU and the JUDGE have ASSUMED that the claims made by the plantif are PROVEN – without the necessary adversarial hearing. Beyond what I have said above the 7th amendment requires controversies involving more than $20 to be decided by a jury following Common Law. Again Put simply – even if this case was brough to the Judge with every single claim beyond dispute – the judge does NOT have the constitutional authority to decide the case himself – without a trial and a decision by a jury.
Those of you on the left CONSTANTLY take shortcuts with the law and constitution.
But this is even WORSE.
The Plantiffs in this case are NOT some contractor whose payment is being stiffed, it is ex USAID employees and democrat lawfare firms.
If as you claim a contractor is being stiffed for completed work – that contractor must file the cliam.
If you are claiming that the work was actually authorized by Congress – then ONLY congress can be the plantiff.
Any other plantiff does not have standing. Ex-USAID workers and democrat lawfare firms are not actually harmed by freezing funds.
Even congress is not actually harmed by a freeze. To prevail in a lawsuit Congress would first have to file, and then have to establish the funds were not being temporarily frozen but permanently stopped AND that the bugdet legislation SPECIFICALLY required THIS SPECIFIC SPENDING.
My point which is LOST on you is that in Lawsuits Plantiffs NEVER get what they want irrevocably just by filing a claim.
That actually violates the constitution in numerous ways.
Judges do not have the authority to make final decisions without holding trial.
A decision that can not be remedied later is a final decision and it requires a trial.
Not paying contractos who are entitled to payment can be remedied.
Forcing payment in error is near impossible to remedy.
“Alito cannot justify his position either”
Of course he can – which he did.
Regardless, the Supreme court did not look at ANY of the issues you claim or that the plantifs claimed.
While SCOTUS was WRONG.
There are only TWO issues that were before the court.
Can a court issue a TRO in a case where there CLEARLY is no irreparable harm – as is the case of ALL cases involving money.
Should SCOTUS intervene in a lower court matter before final adjudication of the case by all lower courts.
Neither of these is a question of the merits. SCOTUS did not even consider whetehr Trump was allowed to do this.
They did not consider whether the Judge was right. Aliton and the minority decided that federal courts can not issue TRO
s on cases where there can be no irreparable harm.
The majority decided on the basis that SCOTUS does not interfere in non-final lower court decisions.
The Majority was WRONG – because a TRO that requires payment that likely can not be clawed back IS a final decision.
So that you can get your head out of your a$$ – those are the only two considerations before the court.
SCOTUS has in the past ruled in favor of EACH of those.
The Reason that the majority is wrong, is because a TRO that can not be repaired i fact a final decision – without ANY trial.
Worse still it is ultimately unapealable.
The next motion by he plantiffs on this case is that since the money has been FORCED to be disbursed, and it can not be recouped, the case is now MOOT. and should be dissmissed. And they will be right about that. Courts are not supposed to make decisions in abstract.
If the money can not be recovered, it no longer matters if it was illegally disbursed. It is entirely possible that the Judge dismisses the case as moot now, and that appealks courts all the way through to SCOTUS agree. Which means the 7th amendment was violated – no trial,
““Further – Who said this was actually authorized by Congress ?”
The plaintiffs and Congress and signed by president Biden.”
The plantiffs are not Congress – they do not have STANDING to make claims for Congress.
Again you are trying to take shortcuts with the law and constitution.
YOU say Congress authorized this – Then Congress can come to court and say they did, and after a trial in front of a jury the jury can decide if that is the case.
Courts get to decide matters on their own entirely when there are NO facts in dispute or when all facts are assumed in favor of the non-moving party – that would be the president.
I have asked you where Congress authorized trans opera’s in Columbia – you have not produced that Statute.
I am SURE that Congress authorized a Budget for USAID. I would be surprised if that Budget does not list a number of GENERAL polciy goals for that spending. In RARE instances it MIGHT even say 2M for famine releif in Ethiopia. Congress is free to be as specific or broad as they please. But if they are BROAD, then the SPECIFICS are at the discretion of the president.
So we are clear here – my point is not that there is no argument, My point is that this is NOT a question of LAW, it is a Question of FACT.
It is near certain as an example that Congress did not specifically require USAID to spend $2B going to Clinton Global Initiative for Trans Opera’s in Columbia.
Who Congress authorized to be paid, How much that specific party was to be paid, and what SPECIFICALLY they are to be paid is a question of FACT and therefore NOT constitutionally within the jurisdiction of a judge without a trial.
Judges may not decide ANY issue of FACT – except by assuming it in favor of the non-moving party, without a trial. And in this case only a Jury can decide issues of FACT. Judges can decide cases without trial where the only issues is the LAW (or constitution) and the LAW is being read as narrowly as possible. That means that UNLESS Congress said – CGI gets $2B that they can spend wastefully, fraudulently and corruptly by March 2025, for Trans Operas in Columbia then the judge must have a trial to determine what the FACTS are.
Because it is not possible to decide if the freeze of spending violates the constitution. Because where it does is a question of FACT as well as law.
I would further note that the above is NOT the only constraints on the Judge – in the semi-hypothetical above – only Congress and CGI would have standing, CGI would only have standing if contracts were signed and work had started – and even then – the extent to which the project was completed would have to be decided as a QUESTION OF FACT. Nor is that enough. The president can withold payment based on claims of Waste Fraud or corruption – even for otherwise legistimately authorized expenditures. So whether there was waste Fraud or Corruption are questions of FACT – that must be decided at trial.
So with absolutely no doubt the Judge violated the law and constitution – by essentially finally deciding the case without a trial – he breached the constitutional requirement for due process – as well as the 7th amendment.
And SCOTUS should simply have Vacated the TRO and remanded the case to the Judge for a trial on the facts.
There is no irrepariable harm to vacating the TRO. There is repairable harm caused by the TRO itself.
Finally – can you cite a single prior SCOTUS decision where SCOTUS found a temporary pause in spending was a violation of the law ?
John Say, Obviously, you don’t understand how courts work. Plaintiffs provide evidence and documentation to a judge when they present their arguments. Just because you do not see the actual documentation does not mean it does not exist. If you want to see proof, I’m sure with some effort and knowing where to look, you will find the evidence you seek.
You used the same kind of arguments when peddling Biden allegations without proof as fact. Now, you argue that allegations are not fact? Hypocrisy seems to be convenient when your form of argument is used against you.
2 Billion dollars in funds for work already done has been frozen by Trump. The judge is correct about forcing Trump to unfreeze those funds because the work has been done. Contractually, the government is obligated to pay. Even you understand that simple concept. Your excessively long response shows you know he’s correct, but you don’t want to acknowledge it by making long-winded rants. You want evidence for claims made, but you never provide proof of claims YOU make. It’s pretty hypocritical and nonsensical, which means your argument is weak. Courts have access to the evidence, and oftentimes, it’s not readily available to the public in a format that will say, “This is the proof.”
Trump’s DOJ makes arguments in court using similar rhetoric, yet they don’t provide proof other than claims as evidence, which you take at face value. Based on your assertion, their arguments are just not facts. That’s why we have judges who determine if their claims have merit or not based on the law, evidence, and documentation.
Here’s the lawsuit.
https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/ECF-1-Complaint-1.pdf
The suspension, they argue, was a breach of contract because the government refused to pay for work already completed. The whole argument is about money OWED to organizations because they already provided services or completed work. Demanding direct evidence, as in actual documentation, is avoiding the fact that the government is not denying the work has not been done. Can you prove that the government has shown evidence that the work was not done? Of course not. But using your argument, the absence of such evidence makes it merely an allegation, which is not a fact in your view; thus, THEIR argument is not valid either. Therefore, they have no reason to withhold funds.
You don’t understand how courts work and it shows.
John Say,
Excellent take down of Dennis!! You prove time and time again how he is not very smart or bright. Thank you!
Under Article 2 it is Trump’s duty to cut waste, fraud and abuse. Roberts is once again trying to wimp out, except this time he has a co-wimp to help him in ACB. As Commander in Chief, Trump has the authority to make sure some of the USAID money isn’t going to enemies of the country, like Hamas. All that happened was that this stupid order will get sent back down to the Muslim / Canadian judge, who will have to be more specific in his order and tell Trump what he can and cannot do. Then it will get sent back up to the SC. USAID is not going to get $3b. This is an executive agency and the executive, that would be Trump, can execute despite liberal judges deciding that they want to be Junior Presidents and HR departments for the Executive Branch
I beleive Roberts and ACB erred for multiple reasons.
If Roberts wishes to lecture the country about not criticizing federal judges for partisanship – he has to shoot down bad and partisan decisions.
The other HUGE problem with this case is that this was NOT a legitimate TRO.
SCOTUS “almost” never interferes with lower court decisions prior to the case being fully adjudicated – and that is MOSTLY wise.
But the standard for a TRO is irrepairable harm – and issues that are about MONEY are NEVER irrepairable harm. There are existing Judicial contraints on TRO’s that Judge Amir failed to follow that precluded a TRO on this case.
Judge Amir could and likely would rule against Trump on the merits after a hearing.
But he has done so BEFORE a hearing, and he has done so in a way that make the hearing itself Moot.
The irrepairable harm is the TRO not the lack of one.
When this is ultimately reversed – there will be nothing to fix.
Trump may actually lose this when it funally hits SCOTUS on the merits – becuase the money will already have been spent and the case will be moot.
And that is Why Roberts and ACB scewed up.
“It was also support for the sanctity of contracts. If you sign a contract to perform work for the federal government, you perform that work, and there is no evidence of fraud or abuse, you are entitled to get paid.”
That too is correct – but it is NOT sufficient even as a REAL claim – much less the hypothetical claim you are making now to grant a TRO.
One of the other issues on this challenge – and one tf the reasons that Trump was able to bring it to the Supreme court and one the many reasons this decision and the TRO was wrong is that claims in Equity almost never qualify for a TRO.
Why ? Because they are about equity. If someone has a contract for work they have already performed – they can sue. They will NOT get a TRO ordering payment – they will have to prove their case in court, after which they will get paid and possibly get damages, interest and penalties.
If they have a contract and have not started or completed the world – the court will hold a trial and determine what if anything they are owed for the work they have preformed of the risk they have taken. As a rule agreed to contracts where no work has been performed and no payment made are not yet binding.
So again Judge Amir is creating a breach of contract where there may not be one.
“The decision by the SC was also a reminder that when the President pledges to make sure the laws are “faithfully executed” that oath of office means something!”
The failure here was on Amir’s part.
While both Amir’s and SCOTUS’s decision were wrong. This is far from the end of this – and it is Judge Amir that is actually interfering with the execution of the law.
ALL of the claims that you make are HYPOTHETICAL.
You have NOT established that Congress authorized these funds – as I said – provide the legislation that specifically authorizes Trans Operas in Columbia.
You have NOT established that contracts have been pbreached or that people have not been paid for work they have performed.
BOTH your above claims are claims that are resolved at Trials – not be TRO’s
A TRO is only for circumstances were irrepairable and unquantifiable harm will occur – alleged breach of contract is NOT such a claim.
Failing to fund a congressional appropiation is NOT that type of claim -= and the only legitimate plantiff for such a cliam is NOT in court.
“As has happened in some past decisions of the Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett proved again to be the swing vote in this case. ”
All the justices in the majority including those on the left are in error on this decision – this should have been an easy decision.
SCOTUS should have told Judge Amir that he can not make decisions in equity BEFORE a trial.
And that he can not make decisions about Congresses intentions when Congress is not challenging.
That said – despite the FACT that Judge Amir is NOT following the law regarding TRO’s.
It is extremely rare for SCOTUS to reverse a lower court on a matter that has not been fully argued by lower courts.
The odds of Barrett and Roberts voted FOR this when it returns to SCOTUS on the merits is near Zero.
“Sam Alito led the dissent. He was “stunned” that District Judge Ali would exercise jurisdiction”
Correct – Judge Amir does not have jurisdiction – there is no plantif claiming Actual harm, and Congress is not in this case.
The judge has no jurisdiction.
“compel DJT to follow the law.”
The judge is NOT compelling Trump to follow the law. He is compelling Trump to continue to abide by decisions of the prior president and prior USAID – that is litterally unconstitutional. Biden is not president anymore, These funds were NOT disbursed. The judge has no jurisdiction.
“Alito and the right-wing majority on the Court think a President has unlimited power to decide which laws to follow and which to ignore”
No they think that courts do not get to make extremely consequential decisions involving billions of dollars based merely on the CLAIMS of plantiffs who do not have standing.
“like the Administrative Procedures and Impoundment Acts”
The APA is constitutional only so far is it covers powers delegated tot he executive by congress.
The Impoundment act is only constitutional to the expect that ir Requires the president to Fulfill legislative priorities directed by Congress.
It does NOT and outside of left wing morons. constrain the president to determine how to best fullfill those priorities.
“Alito endorses the idea that a President is a virtual King or dictator.”
No he has said that Judges are not kings or dictators, and that the US is not a banana republic where judges have priority over the legislature and the president.
Is the Congress in court claiming that the president has failed to follow its dicatates ?
If not – then this judges is violating the constitution.
If I have an agreement with my neighbors sun to mow my grass over the summer, Does a different neighbor get to sue the 15yr old because THEY think the grass needs mowed ?
” And your column is an indication you support that bizarre distortion of the Constitution.”
No it is support for the actual rule of law.
“At least for now the SC is unwilling to endorse the views of the you and the right-wing minority on the Court. That’s a hopeful sign.”
The only thing this is a sign of is that the court is adhering to a tradition of not deciding cases until they have been fully heard by lower courts.
Dennis,
Joe Biden told Ukraine – Fire Shokin or you do not get budgeted money. Was they legal ? Constitutional ?
Worse still he did so for his own profit and that of his family.
Presidents routinely pause or delay funding for a variety of reasons – it happens all the time.
Trump is currently withholding funds for Ukraine to get them back to the bargaining table.
Biden repeatedly threatened to withhold funds to Israel for similar reasons.
In these and myriads of other instances – no court intervened.
No court was asked to intervene.
Why not ? Because no one but congress has the right to intervene, and arguably in many instances even they can not.
In 2023 you ranted and raved bout Judge Cannon – who had been on the bench for 4 years at the time – that she was a Trump appointee and too inexperienced for this case.
Judge Amir has not been a federal Judge for more than 2 months. He is in WAY over his head.
The SCOTUS decision is a disappointment – primarily because it IS SCOTUS’s job to reign in Rogue Judges.
Roberts has decried attacks on judges as partisan. We should not be attacking Judges as Partisan.
Judges should not be acting partisan. When they are it is SCOTUS’s job to reign them in.
I agree with Turley that congress should not rush to impeach Judges for politicizing the courts.
But UNLESS SCOTUS does its job and prevent that – then something else must be done.
This is where I DISAGREE with Turley. Impeachment by congress is a dangerous tool that should be used sparingly.
But it is also the final check on a rogue president or rogue judges.
When the rest of the system fails – then impeachment is on the table.
If democrats REALLY beleive Trump withheld funds from Ukraine AND the really beleive that he was not allowed to, then they should not have impeached him, they should have gone to court to release the funds. But they did not do that.
Here we have an ALLEGATION – and that is ALL that it is that Trump is improperly withholding funds Congress has required to be spent.
There is NO proof that Congress directed they be spent specifically for the purposes USAID is spending them for – and in fact the Purpose of the freeze is to determine whether that spending is being directed legitimately.
Do you honestly beleive that Congress directed money to Trans operas in Columbia ?
Next We have an ALLEGATION – and that is all that it is, that Trump is refusing to pay for contracts that were completed. This case is just at its inception – it is impossible to know that is True. There has not even been time for Trump to decide if he has not going to pay these contracts – if there are any.
There is a claim – by the president that some or all of this funding is waste and Fraud – while I think the evidence of that is solid, that too is not alot more than an allegation.
But there is a fundimental difference between Judge Amir’s actions and President Trump’s.
There will be permanent harm if Trump is right and Amir is wrong. And THAT is the legitimate basis for a TRO – against the plantiffs.
There will be no permanent harm if Trump is wrong and the plantiffs are right. Legitimate contracts will be honored. The courts will ultimately insure that. After Waste and Fraud has been rooted out – any frozen funds – if Congress has not clawed them back, will be available to fund projects that Trump beleives meet the requirements of the budget.
What Amir has done is required the govenrment to spend money at the direction of a person who is no longer president and employees of that president – many of whom have been fired, over the direction of the person who is actually president.
As has been said many times – the US has only one president at a time.
Congress budgets money to be spent, but nearly all the details are the business of the CURRENT president.
Biden was unfortunately free to direct USAID to spend money on trans operas in columbia – while he was president.
He was free to delegate the power to choose to spend budgeted money on trans operas in columbia – while he was president.
Today, he is n longer president and have not been for over a month. It is the current presidents power to determine how to spend Congressional allocated funds consistent with congresses direction. It is the current presidents job to choose what they are spent for, and to assure they are not spent fraudulently wastefully or corruptly. It is NOT within the power of ex-presidents. It is not within he power of federal employees when the current president has said stop. It is NOT within the popower of federal judges – who have no jurisidction unless congress choses to challenge the president – and even then it is unlikely the courts have the power to preclued the president from halting waste fraud or corruption.
It is also not within the power of the courts to preclude the president from delaying spending to determine if that spending is waste fraud and corruption.
If anything Alito’s disent was not sharp enough.
To a very large extent this case is a tempest in a tea pot.
After all it is only about 2 Billion dollars. Though is woudl SHOCK most americans to think that judges and congress and govenrment employees think 2 billion dollars is de minimus.
The left is having a holy war over Trump’s efforts to check waste fraud and corruption in Many’s congress allocated int he past, and Biden directed to be spent, but were not spent before he left office.
It is highly unlikely that Judge Amir’s decision will hold up when more than a TRO is appealed.
You are smoking whacky weed if you think that when this case hits SCOTUS on the merits that Trump will lose.
But lets see lightning strikes – and you get what you want.
What will you have accomplished ?
The american people will have seen a lawless left, and lawless judges through to the supreme court bless egregiously wasteful, fraudulent and corrupt spending and preclude that being reigned in.
How many people do you think will vote for Democratsin in 2026 because the courts FORCED trump to spend THEIR tax dollars on Trans Opera’s in Columbia ?
How many angry voters do you think will show up at the polls to vote out ANYONE with a D behind their name ?
Next, This decision ONLY applies to spending choices that USAIDE had already made. It only applies to 2B in money that USAID staff had decided how to spend but had not been spent.
This Judge has absolutely no power at all over future Trump administration spending decisions.
The ONLY thing this decision accomplishes is getting a bit of the last bits of waste fraud and corruption of the Biden administration out the door.
NO MATTER WHAT the left wing nut gravy train is OVER.
But lets just say I am Wrong about that. Lets say that Judge Amir goes BEYOND ordering Trump to spend money on Trans Opera’s in Columbia.
Lets say that Judge Amir neuters the presidents power to cu future waste fraud and corruption .
You think voters in 2026 will be angry because a partisian hack judge thwarted stopping $2B in waste fraud and corruption ?
How angry do you think they will be if you are stupid enough to find a way to keep funding endless waste fraud and corruption over the objections of the president and without action by congress ?
You can not win this fight.
Trump has once again Rope-a-doped democrats.
We are way way early for reading the tea leaves for 2026. But what little clues we have are NOT going democrats way.
The republican edge in new voter registrations that started with Trumps election in 2016 is continuing and growing.
We have had two minor elections in districts that were Trump +0.5 – the GOP candidate in those specail elections won and outperformed Trump by 6-10pts. If that occurs nationwide in 2026 – Republicans will have solid control of the Senate. In 2026 Senate ONCE again Republicans are almost exclusively defending SOLID red seats. While there are democrats defending in states Trump won, or in swing states with Open Seats.
If Democrats SWEEP every open seat or Trump +6 state – they will STILL not retake the senate.
The Odds favor GOP+2 in the senate in 2026 – and that is even if Dems manage to take the house.
It is also looking increasingly like there are really very few seats in play in the house. Gerrymandering by Both parties in all states has decreased the number of competitive seats. That is Traditionally how Gerrymandering works. Even in States that Democrats control, making sure that they create the maximum number of Democrat SAFE seats means maximizing the number of GOP safe seats. If a state is 52/48 D Creating alot of 55:45 D districts REQUIRES creating approx 48% 55:45R seats. Some consultants I have followed have said there is only about 30 House seats in the entire country that are not in the hands of one party or the other by more than 6pts. Barring a highly unusal 6pt swing that means there are only 30 seats in play – and Republicans have the advantage in 2/3 of those. The house has slowly been locking itself in concrete very close to where it is right now.
In GA Willis lost MULTIPLE cases yesterday.
The plea deals with 4 parties in the Willis case were essentially vacated. These were diversion deals that means that the defendants agreed to cooperaqted and endure limited supervison by probation for some specified time, but if they complied the cases against them would be dismissed. Yesterday the Case against Chesboro and 3 others were dismissed EARLY at the request of the defendants.
That means that there is NO conviction – that they are exhonerated – that is the specific language of the judge in tossing the cases.
Willis has been fighting a number of subpeona’s right and left, and has lost over and over. Yesterday she lost her efforts to block the subpena of the GA Senate, in a ruling by a Black Female Atlanta Democrat Judge who found her challenge BS.
Just to be clear – I know you think you won the 5-4 SCOTUS decision. but infact you LOST,
Nearly all Trump’s EO’s are also Rope-a-dopes for democrats.
When you challenge them – you prove even more lawfare.
Trump has picked issues that have 70-80% public support, forcing you to the wrong side of the people – again you win you lose.
You have given Trump a number of issues.
If he gets another SCOTUS appointment – he will be able to pick another Alito rather than an ACB.
He will be blaming inflation of lawfare by Democrats that is preventing cutting wasteful spending.
Trump is going to spend lots of time in front of the media reading off lists of programs that are going to shock people that Democrats are funding – despite a house, senate majority and control of the WH.
He will have plenty of ground to attack lawless judges – successfully.
I keep using the Trans Opera’s in Columbia example – but there are sop many offensive and egregious ones.
Jusdge Amir, Democrats, and the left have grabbed a tar baby and you can’t let go.
You do not seem to grasp – IF YOU WIN, YOU LOSE.
So that we are clear – any of the lawfare cases that get to SCOTUS and get decided on the MERITS – TRump will win.
EXCEPT the birthright citizenship case.
Trump will lose that. But he will win with his supporters – even a loss is a win in these cases.
So many think that this agency is for “AID” but it is the Agency for International Development. They did such wonderful things as outlined by DOGE in addition to funding gain of function research in collaboration with the PRC. Wonderful result, a world-wide pandemic and millions died, disabled and displaced. They have been involved in regime change and many other social projects that do not reflect the policies of the United States. From the sound of the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Democratic politicians, I have a feeling this was their slush fund to fuel their anti American, anti Western Civilization radical takedown of this nation. It was like a giant BOOM!! from an ammunition dump explosion!
Small setback, but not a slap down.
Did you say somehting?
“It was also support for the sanctity of contracts.”
Foreign welfare is not a contract. It’s a looter’s scheme where money is taken by physical force from American taxpayers. Compulsion vitiates a “contract.” And it vitiates a grant or gift, which is what foreign welfare is.
Dennis, low IQ America hating, self loathing White paltroons, like yourself, have such hatred for our borders, language, and culture, that you would gladly give away the keys to the kingdom. You’re another pseudo intellectual who foolishly believes you’re nuanced in what’s lawful in society. USAID and other NGO’s are money laundering outfits that subvert law by allowing government officials to get their kickbacks through said NGO schemes.
OT
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1896293907044184450
KJ Smith is quoting Abraham Lincoln.
__________________________________________
“Oscars: Actress KJ Smith Suggests Black Americans ‘Start Looking Into’ Moving to Africa Due to U.S. Political Climate”
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA – JUNE 26: KJ Smith attends the 2022 BET Awards at Microsoft Theat
“Actress KJ Smith bizarrely suggested that the black community “start looking into” moving to Africa due to the political climate in the United States during a red carpet event at the Oscars on Sunday evening. After being asked if there is something she wishes “is there something that you wish was talked about more within our community,” Smith replied, “Understanding our roots,” adding, “I think it’s really important.” “I think we’re not trapped here,” BET’s Sistas star continued. “With the political climate that’s going on in the United States of America, we are not trapped here. There are places that we can go.” “There are countries that are receiving us back — citizenship back — with open arms, and I think that it’s time for the black community, as a whole, to start looking into those resources,” Smith added.
_____________________________________________________________________
“If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854
Presidents have no authority whatsoever to alter laws codified into federal statute, by a previous act of Congress and signed into law by a president.
Presidents also have no authority whatsoever to provide “judicial review” (interpreting constitutional law). Only the highest court in a district or region up to the U.S. Supreme Court has that authority.
Congress has the authority (under Article I powers) to “enforce the U.S. Constitution” (enforce the high court’s interpretation of the Constitution) onto local, state and federal officials.
Only foreign dictators have the authority Trump is trying to illegally grab!
Presidents also have no authority whatsoever to provide “judicial review” (interpreting constitutional law).
Judicial review, and interpreting the Constitution, are not identical. You’re right that, by definition, the President does not undertake judicial review. As the name suggests, that is what judges do.
But it is wrong to suppose that there is no interpretive function at all in the Executive Branch. All three branches engage in some level of Constitutional interpretation – not all such questions make it before a court for resolution – it’s just that where the Executive and Judicial branches reach differing conclusions on the same exact issue, the judicial conclusion controls. That’s what “judicial review” is all about.
(Honest) Executive Branch lawyers try to follow U.S. Supreme Court interpretations to the best of their ability along with past court rulings on any constitutional issue. Government attorneys swear an Oath of Office to follow the U.S. Constitution and it’s circumscribing federal laws.
An attorney that is dishonest (gaming the system) is supposed to be penalized or disbarred from or practicing law by their state legal bar association.
For example:
An Executive Branch attorney trying to dishonestly overturn the 14th Amendment and over 100 years of case law clarifying the 14th Amendment. Maybe arguing presidential executive orders supersede court rulings and the Constitution itself. Seems like those dishonest attorneys probably shouldn’t be practicing constitutional law.
What you say is mostly true but requires some clarification. First, not all constitutional-interpretation issues that Executive branch lawyers have to deal with have a Scotus opinion directly on point. Given that many such issues arise every day, it’s likely only some of them do, and many don’t.
Second, it is a common trait for lawyers, including honest and ethical lawyers, to bring test cases before the courts. This can occur with novel issues, and it can also occur with issues that were decided long ago, in a different era, where societal conditions and legal theories have evolved in the interim.
I assume you’re referring to the question of birthright citizenship. If I’m right, then the Scotus case you’re referring to (US v. Wong Kim Ark) was (a) decided 127 years ago when widespread immigration tourism and anchor babies were not a thing, and (b) involved parents who were in the US legally. This latter point makes the case factually distinguishable from the EO, so it’s perfectly ethical to get a test case before the courts where the parents are not here legally and test the limits of the Ark decision, or even seek to have it overturned.
If you are operating from the premise that Scotus precedent can never be validly overturned, consider: it has been overturned on numerous occasions, including Brown v. Board of Education overturning the decision (Plessy v. Ferguson) that had said separate-but-equal was valid under the 14th Amendment. I assume you don’t feel that Brown was wrongly decided, right?
I beleive Trump is going to lose the Birth Right Citizenship EO.
But the problem with WKA is not that it is 100 years old.
It is that Trump’s EO is NOT in conflict with it.
WKA’s parents came to the US legally, WKA was borne here of parents who were here legally.
The govenrment recognized his citizenship while he was here.
WKA’s parents returned to china and he returned to China to vist them, and then came back to the US on a US passport and was allowed back, Then a few years later visited again, and THIS TIME on his return his passport was confiscated and he was denied entry.
Trump’s EO only applies to children born in the US of illegal immigrants who arrived AFTER he became president.
It is still an incrorrect reading of the 14th amendment, but it is also still a case of first impression.
WKA may provide HINTS but it is not completely on point.
Speaking of the illicit, unconstitutional, and improperly ratified “Reconstruction Amendments” of Lincoln (i.e. successors), where did Lincoln obtain the power to illicitly impose martial law, deny fully constitutional and not prohibited secession, suspend habeas corpus, commence a war of aggression with a sovereign foreign nation without a declaration by Congress, confiscate private property, nullify existing immigration law, issue an unconstitutional proclamation with no legal basis, etc.?
You appear to adhere to only the laws you enjoy and reject those you don’t. How’s that work?
Freaking Lincoln was the most prolific political, statutory, and constitutional criminal in American history.
OMFK while you are mostly correct – but the Judicial branch needs MORE than to disagree with one of the other branches to control.
Bother the executive branch and the legislative branch initiate actions – the Judicial Branch does not.
The opinion of the judicial branch is irrelevant except when a case or controversy are brought before it.
In this case – the judicial branch can not on its own challenge the executive branches interpretation for the law or the constitution.
They can only do so when a party with a legitimate conflict with the executive branch comes before them and asks them to resolve that conflict. The legitimacy of specific federal spending is between congress and the president – only congress has a legitimate challenge to the executive branches interpretation of the federal budget.
Please show me where in Article I the constitution provides enforcement power to the Congress
Lookup Impoundment as it relates to funding from congress and Presidential powers. You are wrong.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is unconstitutional.
It constitutes usurpation of power from the executive branch by the legislative branch.
The Constitution distributes the unassailable, omnipotent power of the King in distinct and particular areas of governance.
The legislative branch is vested with the legislative power.
The executive branch is vested, exclusively, with the executive power.
The judicial branch is vested with the judicial power.
I am not sure if the act itself is unconstitutional. But the broad interpretation of it most certainly is.
I would further note that the impoundment act is also unnecescary.
If Congress does not beleive that the president is following its budget directives – it can challenge the president in court.
That would be the moment the courts become the authority on the constitutionality of the presidents actions – NOT before.
This is also important – because just as the president is obligated to perform the budget priorities of the legislature.
Determining EXACTLY what the legislature has directed when there is a conflict is the domain of the courts WHEN it is challenged by congress. Congress may beleive they specified one thing in the budget and the president may disagreem and the courts must fort that out.
One of the easiest and relevant examples is that Congress may allocate billions to USAID, but it can not budget that to be spent for waste or fraud. It also can not budget money for acts that violate rights – such as censorship.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a Supreme court case where the court ordered the executive to spend money on waste and fraud.
Please cite the Constitution for any power of any branch to “interpret” anything.
The legislative branch legislates, the executive branch executes, and the judicial branch adjudicates by ensuring that actions comport with law.
No branch has any power to modify, modify by “interpretation,” or amend the Constitution outside of the constitutional amendment process.
The judicial branch has the judicial power, which is to ensure that actions comport with law.
No branch has any power to modify, modify by “interpretation,” or amend the Constitution outside of the constitutional amendment process.
It’s true that no branch has the power to modify the Constitution, but no branch could function if it couldn’t engage in some level of interpretation. The Constitution does not give specific instructions for every situation that could possibly come along.
And you didn’t cite the Constitution. You just improvised; you just riffed. This is the only decision the judicial branch can make: The judicial branch has the judicial power, and the executive branch has the executive power. The legislative branch has the power to legislate to fund an activity, not exercise executive power. The expenditure of funds constitutes the execution of executive power. Period. The judicial branch has no legal basis to decide anything else or to compel the executive branch. The Constitution distributes the unassailable, omnipotent power of the King in distinct and particular areas of governance. The contractors would do well to secure funding before completion, such as occurs in an escrow account.
And you didn’t cite the Constitution.
That’s like telling a seminary professor who teaches biblical hermeneutics: “You haven’t cited any passage of the Bible that says you are allowed to interpret the Bible.”
THE POWER TO ADJUDICATE, NOT EXECUTE
The judicial branch is vested NO executive power by the Constitution and can produce no legal basis to usurp or exercise executive power.
The judicial branch has no authority to exercise executive power in any aspect, facet, degree, or amount.
No legislation or adjudication that usurps and exercises executive power is constitutional.
The executive Power, all of the executive Power, is vested in the President, in exclusion of every other individual, branch, or entity.
The court’s decision can only be that the judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, has the power to adjudicate but not exercise executive power.
The Constitution distributes the unassailable, omnipotent power of the King in distinct and particular areas of governance.
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,…” and those judges must be impeached and convicted “during [bad] Behaviour.”
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
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.
You apparently are unfamiliar with the doctrine of Separation of Powers. This judge, as the opinion recognized, made the SC a receiver in bankruptcy. Trump isn’t grabbing illegal authority. USAID is under his EXECUTIVE authority. Agencies of the executive are there to help the executive. This judge is radical who wants to step way outside of his judicial lane. Some of the other liberal judges making bad decisions, have decided it is their role to be the HR department for the country. The SC is filled with 3 absolute nut cases and 2 wimps. This is a terrible precedent, although they may get a second shot to correct this awful decision.
# you may have scored a point, buddy. There isn’t a time limit for spending money. USAID is in audit. It’s unreasonable to throw good money after bad. When it’s sorted out they’ll be paid.
Can one of the laywers here play this out for me? So, obviously, this decision sounds like it is not the final word on this. It also sounds like when the final word comes down, it will ultimately be a victory for the Executive Branch over the Judicial Branch on issues pertaining to how the President directs spending. I mean, is there anyone here who would argue the courts get to tell the President where to spend Congresses appropriated funding? That seems like a real stretch here.
The courts aren’t “telling the President where to spend Congresses (sp) appropriated funding.”
The Courts should invalidate an act taken by the President, which impounds funds that Congress has appropriated. If X dollars are appropriated by Congress for USAID, and the President refuses to spend it or directs that money for an entirely different purpose… the Dept of Defense or building the Border Wall, for example, the role of the Courts – if they actually do their job – is to invalidate that unconstitutional Presidential action.
Marbury vs. Madison established the right of judicial review a long time ago. Hopefully, non-lawyers learned about it in grade school US history.
This is not about appropriated funds. This is about the administration which controls USA ID having the power to cancel decisions made by USAID under the previous administration.
Congress did not specifically order the money be given to these particular contractors. Congress set aside funds that can be spent by the administration how it decides. In this case, the administration decided that the previous administration’s decisions on that were wrong.
Bingo and Hear Hear. Legislative power is not being usurped since the funds were not authorized by Congress. The executive branch is empowered to direct or redirect expenditures previously authorized.
This is about the administration which controls USA ID having the power to cancel decisions made by USAID under the previous administration.
No, it isn’t. It is entirely about payment for work that has already been done. The contractors have a valid claim to be paid for that work
But it’s also about a district court seizing power that is simply not available to it. Sovereign immunity has not been waived, which means that while the government owes the money, the court has no authority to order it paid.
I’m a Canadian and remember a quote from President Andrew Jackson ” we don’t need the Supremes ” and they did not !
Actually, Jackson’s saying was “They have made their decision, now let them enforce it.”
He never said that either. Years later, an opponent of Jackson claimed he said it.
There is no such quote.
Claimed the “Right” would be more accurate. The Constitution sure does not.
Grade school…Marbury vs Madison. The DOE has failed our kids. Many cannot do math or read at grade level and you think they teach Marbury vs Madison in grade school. Ain’t happening.
There are no lawyers here. This is a troll infested blog where the arm-chair legal experts and “lawyers” offer their two cents and gripes about the law they don’t understand or care about understanding as long as their president is…winning.
re: PTC
Using a sports metaphor:
The Judicial Branch courts are the “referees” interpreting the written rulebook (Constitution and its circumscribing federal laws).
The Executive Branch (Trump’s agencies) are the “players”.
Players can do anything they want as long as they don’t step over constitutional out-of-bounds or illegally foul anyone. When players (Trump officials) do break the rules, courts have the authority to penalize the rule breakers!
In real life government, Trump made a promise to GOD to follow the U.S. Constitution and it’s circumscribing federal laws as a condition of retaining authority. The range of penalties include impeachment and removal for betraying that oath!
Alito’s dissent here is quite remarkable.
Can someone help me reconcile his approach here with his dissenting opinion in United States v. Texas—in which he would’ve upheld an injunction by a single (judge-shopped) district judge that effectively dictated to the executive branch what its immigration enforcement priorities must be?
From that case:
“nothing in our precedents even remotely supports this grossly inflated conception of “executive Power,” which seriously infringes the “legislative Powers” that the Constitution grants to Congress. At issue here is Congress’s authority to control immigration, and “[t]his Court has repeatedly emphasized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over’ the admission of aliens.” In the exercise of that power, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a law that commands the detention and removal of aliens who have been convicted of certain particularly dangerous crimes. The Secretary of Homeland Security, however, has instructed his agents to disobey this legislative command and instead follow a different policy that is more to his liking.”
He also accused the majority of imposing a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers. The “penalty” to which Alito is referring is the government’s underlying legal obligation to pay its debts. Debts aren’t a “penalty”; they are the literal cost of doing business.
I guess Alito doesn’t think that the US government should be required to pay its contractual debts? I wonder if he’d say the same thing if Musk/Trump refused to pay his salary?
Justice Alito appears to be quite frustrated with his inability to lend support to a candidate he favors in any substantial way. His reasoning, which some might find ‘peculiar,’ seems heavily influenced by his personal beliefs rather than grounded in legal principles. This tendency encapsulates what many view as Alito’s judicial philosophy: he often prioritizes his ideological perspectives over the text of the law itself. When the law does not align with his personal convictions, he tends to reinterpret or stretch legal arguments to lend credibility to his opinions. Ironically, in doing so, he embodies the very form of judicial activism that he frequently critiques in his fellow judges and justices. This duality raises questions about the consistency of his judicial approach and highlights a potential bias stemming from his ideological commitments.
Two totally different cases.
The Legislature (Congress) makes the laws. The Executive enforces them. The case you referenced was about the Executive and Legislative branches wrangling for final authority in a realm where Congress has the upper hand.
The $2B USAID case is a matter where a lower judge in the Judiciary is wrangling with the Executive over authority on how the Executive spends money allocated by Congress. The lower court judge has no jurisdiction to constrain the power of the Executive.
Generally, spending bills passed by Congress allocate money for the various categories of operations and responsibilities of the Federal Government. That means the Executive can spend up to, but usually not in excess of the spending allocations in each of its categories. It usually does not mean the Executive MUST spend all the money in all categories.
David,
That is woefully inaccurate. The $2B USAID case concerns money allocated by Congress that the Executive ALREADY agreed to spend. Congress mandated the spending, and the contractual obligations arise from contracts that were entered into by the Executive when the contracts were negotiated. Judge Ali’s order was about work ALREADY COMPLETED for which the money is ALREADY DUE. If there is authority for the proposition that the government is not legally obliged to pay its bills, Alito doesn’t cite it.
Thus, the comparison to United States v. Texas is on point. Both concern refusal by the Executive to spend money allocated by Congress. But, in this case, the Executive ALREADY AGREED to spend the money, so its even more indefensible.
Well the District Courts don’t have jurisdiction over unpaid work, that’s for https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/
Incorrect. Bowen v. Massachusetts.
The Supreme Court already held that relief under the Administrative Procedure Act can run to whether the government is obliged to pay expenditures to which the recipients are legally entitled.
” The federal district courts, rather than the Claims Court, have
jurisdiction to review a final HHS order refusing to reimburse a State for
a category of expenditures under its Medicaid program.”
“Second, and most importantly, even
the monetary aspects of the relief sought by the State are not “money
damages” as that term is used in § 702. The ordinary meaning of the
term is compensatory relief for an injury suffered. Here, the State’s
suits are in the nature of an equitable action for specific relief seeking
reimbursement to which the State was allegedly already entitled, rather
than money in compensation for losses suffered as a result of the dis-
allowance.”
This is the same situation. Plaintiffs are legally entitled to their contractual losses. Alito might have a better argument for contracts which have yet to be performed. This $2B however is for services already rendered and owed to plaintiffs.
Do you agree?
# who are the plaintiffs?
The plaintiffs are providers who have already performed work under contract with the USA and are now entitled to be paid for it.
The issue is that the district court does not have the authority to order it paid.
“The plaintiffs are providers who have already performed work under contract with the USA and are now entitled to be paid for it.”
Each of those things is a question of FACT.
You make CLAIMS when you file a case.
When those claims are about facts, they get decided in a trial by a jury.
Did you read Alito’s dissent? He specifically addresses your argument and points out that in Bowen the court did not and could not order money to be paid out.
“The $2B USAID case concerns money allocated by Congress that the Executive ALREADY agreed to spend.”
That is entirely irrelevant. Even signed contracts are not binding until SOME effort has been made to perform them.
While there is a CLAIM here that the work had already been performed. – that is a claim, it is not a conclusion of law, and not within the pretrail powers of the court.
This is NOT about whether the plantiffs might prevail.
This is a TRO’s and it is about ones specifically about money where there is no irreparable harm to having a trail.
But there is irreparable harm to ordering payment without a trial.
” Congress mandated the spending”
Again – that is NOT a legitimate question of law. Absent an incredible degree of specificity in the budget, you can not possibly conclude as a matter of LAW that the SPECIFIC spending was mandated.
Again this is not about whether plantiffs would previal at a trial.
It is about a judge deciding questions of FACT without a trial.
“and the contractual obligations arise from contracts that were entered into by the Executive when the contracts were negotiated.”
Contractual obligations do not start until some step towards fullfillment of the contract has occured – and that is a QUESTION OF FACT.
Further One party in a contract can ALWAYS unilaterally terminate the contract, and if they do the actual damages to the other party are a QUESTION OF FACT.
And AGAIN outside the pretrial determination of the court.
” Judge Ali’s order was about work ALREADY COMPLETED for which the money is ALREADY DUE. ”
Again a question of FACT. Not one of law. The Judge tried to short circuit the requirement of a trial.
“If there is authority for the proposition that the government is not legally obliged to pay its bills, Alito doesn’t cite it.”
So many problems.
I can not just send a bill to the government and expect it will be paid.
There is issue upon issue that is all questions of FACT.
If absolutely every single CLAIM made by the Plantiffs is proven at a trial – they will be entitled to payment – possibly with damages.
But not before.
Further short of executing on a judgement that has occured AFTER a trial, there is no power of the courts to just order Money to be disbursed. Try reading the 7th amendment.
I do not KNOW the actual facts of this case – and I have no reason to beleive YOU or the Judge or anyone else.
We have seen SO MUCH lying by left wing nuts, the MSM. the Media. democrats, democrat lawfare that I would not beleive a Biden appointed Judge if he said the Sun will rise tomorow.
But while this massive lack of credibility is a major problem here,
The reason the Judge and SCOTUS are wrong is because money judgements occur AFTER a trial. Due Process, and the 7th amendment require that. One of the reasons for that is because it is TRIALS that establish FACTS, The 7th amendment reuires JURIES to establish facts in monetary despites after a trial, but SOMETIMES we allow Judges to find facts AFTER A TRIAL.
I would be atleast partly willing to beleive that all of the CLAIMS that are being made are also FACTS – if I had something more than the plantiffs Claims and the Judges pretrail order which is supposed to happen at trial.
It is POSSIBLE that the administration admitted several claims as facts – but again – left wing nut courts, democrats, and the left generally do NOT have the credibility for me to beleive that without proof.
But EVEN if EVERY SINGLE CLAIM was actually a FACT, It would STILL be within the power of the executive to temporarily freeze spending.
All that would do is give the plaintiff a claim for damages – again established AFTER a trial.
I and many others here have raised strong legal objections to this nonsense. Objections that are valid even if it is ultimately proven that every single claim is actually a fact. There is still no basis for an order forcing payment prior to a trial.
But there are many other factors that are relevant here that go beyond merely the constitution and the law.
YOU CLEARLY DO NOT GRASP HOW ANGRY A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE.
There has ALWAYS been a large body of people upset about govenrment spending and waste.
Polls taken while Obama was president and Federal Spending was about $4T and Obama was doing his own DOGE thing – but with less fanfare and less real effort, found that supermajorities of people estimated govenrment waste and fraud at about 1.6T/year.
Today we are going futher in debt by $1T every 100 days. We are 36T in debt, that is 150% of GDP – no country has ever been able to escape from that without default and years of economic mess. Before Obama was elected Reinhart and Rogoff – economists on the left found that economic growth slowed and then stopped as Debt went above 80% of GDP.
Democrats had the power to do as they pleased from 2021-2023 – and they did and the public assessement – as well as the reality is that was an absolute disaster. If you adjust GDP for inflation – there has been little or no ACTUAL growth over the past 4 years.
With Biden’s departures we learn that the jobs numbers Biden has been touting were heavily inflated with more government employees and illegal immigrants.
Biden and Harris were constantly telling us all how great the economy was – how Bidenomics worked. Yet they persuaded no one – people decided correctly that whatever numbers Biden was claiming – did not reflect the reality of THEIR lives.
Something those on the left have not managed to grasp. It is NOT what Biden and Harris SAID that tanked democrats in this election.
It is not what Trump said that won him this election. It was the reality that each individual voter experienced.
And the Electorate is Surely – we have idiots on the left claiming “it has been 24hrs the price of eggs has not dropped” While at the same time fighting tooth and nail against every effort to find waste and fraud in government and reign it in.
Republicans int he House and Senate seem to thing that when Voters in 2012 said they thoguht govenrment spending could be cut by $1.6T – that they meant per DECADE. No they mean per YEAR. Will support for DOGE and sprnding cuts remain at 72% levels, as more and more and more cuts are made ? No At somepoint the abstract demand for 1.6T in cuts will be overcome by cuts to some program that each individual cares about. But we are NOT jumping to that. So far the prospect of 300K govenrment workers looking for new jobs has barely dented public enthusiasm.
Besides – government employees are NOT all that popular right now.
I can go on and on – I can point out the anger – because he People of NC got screwed because there was no money after a natural disaster, because it had been wasted.
Some of the things that MAG supporters – and even just people who want spending cuts beleive is likely to be false – atleast false with respect to details. But for multiple reasons that does NOT matter.
I constantly repeat here the Trans Opera in Columbia. That was a minor expense, it is not one of the times that is part of this lawsuit.
But that does not matter – because it has captured the public consciousness. It is a symbol for ALL govenrment waste fraud and corruption.
Other items might not be so prone to trigger people – but they are no less waste fraud and corruption.
The left has LOST the messaging war. And has stupidly allowed itself to be rope-a-doped by Trump.
I am pointing out that people are angry – because they feel that the past 4 years of govenrment has screwed them.
They are also angry because for as long as they can remember the left, democrats, the media have LIED to them.
The judge in theis case could have nailed it, could ne right about the law and the facts, and hundreds of millions of people would not beleive him. Trump is successfully ranting about the bias in the courts. He is Successful – not because each and every court decision he attacks is wrong – but because soo soo soo many have been that hundreds of millions of people do not trust the courts.
Roberts tone deaf defending the courts recently attacking the rhetoric that the courts are politicized.
He failed to grasp that what the Chief justice of the United State Supreme court needs to do is NOT tell us all that we MUST trust the courts, that they are not overflowing with bias. That what he needed to do was Reign in – KILL off bias in the courts to restablish their credibility.
Again the ;left constantly confuses WORDS with REALITY. People do not trust the left the MSM, democrats – because they have lied over and over. People do not trust the courts – because they have been OBVIOUSLY biased.
Even if you are so delusional on the left that you beleive that the perception of the majority of people are WRONG,
You are STILL screwed – because a super majority of people DO NOT TRUST YOU and they are not going to listen.
We live in the least racist country in the world in the least racist moment in history.
But if you think I am wrong about that – it does not matter – super majorities of people beleive that.
And calling them fascist, racist, nazis is NOT going to fix anything – though it MAY make some of them into FASCIST RACIST NAZIS.
I am covering a bunch of topics, but there is one common theme.
Super majorities of people DO NOT BELEIVE YOU – for good reason.
You are NOT going to change that with WORDS.
The decision of this judge was a mistake. The decision by SCOTUS was a mistake.
Even if it was lawful and constitutional in every way – which it clearly is not.
All it did was PISS PEOPLE OFF.
It diminished trust in the courts, it reinforced the growing distrust of the public for the left, the MSM and democrats.
If this judge had NOT issued a TRO but held actual evidenctiary hearings – preferably with a jury deciding facts.
It is STILL likely that even if he CORRECTLY reached the this decision that there would have been alot of pushback and claims of bias.
Frankly the left, and democrats lost – just by filing these lawsuits. You self owned as the party of waste fraud and corruption.
But had the courts followed a transparent process – an MORE than transparent process – had they given Trump- EVERY advantage and he STILL losts. You would have regained SOME credibility with SOME people – and you hare hundreds of millions in the whole, you have a long way to go.
You regain trust by behaving trustworthy – by ACTING trustworthy. By NOT lying about everything. By not picking fights that you lose even if you win.
Right now – “You don’t matter anymore.”
You are the child molester just released from Prison on probation. Every claim anyone makes about you will stick.
And like the pedo – you brought this on yourself.
The argument above is not about the law or the constituion – I made those arguments in other posts.
The argument above is more important.
When you lose credibility – you can be right – and no one beleives you.
That is where those of you defending this nonsense are.
And you seem surprisingly clueless about it.
#74. You can’t print more funny money. What if congress passed a budget giving USAID 500 billion? The president wouldn’t sign it.
Biden signed that budget and DJT is saying we can’t pay it because of an economic emergency? DJT is still investigation crime and has evidence USAID is fraud in some cases. He’s holding money until completed.
He can send recipients a letter that reads due to an internal audit payments may be delayed or cut. Common sense
The dissent seems pretty clear. He doesn’t dispute that the money may be owed, but the district judge simply has no authority to order it paid. Sovereign immunity has not been waived, so this remedy is not available in equity. He suggests where the plaintiffs may go to receive payment, and how they may go about it, but that is not here and now.
That’s very different from the immigration case, where the government was simply ignoring the law. The law explicitly required certain people to be detained and deported and the government was outright refusing to do so.
why bother having election if Judges control government?
Budgets. This budget was signed by Biden and is in audit mode pending bankruptcy of the national government
Guyventner,
For that matter, why even have elections if unelected bureaucrats run the country?
Also, if Congress can create inferior courts, why can’t they reign them in by revising the judiciary act? If all these men and women in black robes aren’t put back into their proper place, then our nation is doomed.
Just my $0.02 worth.
It appears that the ignorance of MAGA radicals has reared its ugly head again. They are not happy with Justice Barrett’s vote because they think she is supposed to vote for Trump no matter what. Bummer. She did what she had always done: follow the law. Even the basic fact that Trump tried to appeal a TRO, which is not appealable, and this is regarding work already completed that the Trump administration is refusing to pay for, is not only a breach of contract but a disregard for the intent of Congress when they appropriated those funds.
Those criticizing ACB because she did her job and did not succumb to kissing Trump’s ring in his favor like Alito wanted are entirely ignorant of the law and how the court works. Alito’s dissent is a tantrum penned in frustration because he could not help Trump with what he wanted.
Trite and unoriginal no way to go through life. George
Was this an action for breach of contract?
“Intent of Congress” cannot morph into an exercise of executive power which is solely vested in “a President.”
ignorance? Biden was incompetent and Democrats regularly gave billions on whims to countries and failed students!
So sad, when you get non-lawyers commenting on legal procedures. As Justice Alito correctly pointed out, the time for a proper appeal of the lower court will come after the grant of the preliminary injunction. The lower court properly issued a TRO which by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not an appealable order as it is merely temporary and not a final order (which are appealable). So sorry, George, but the battle is far from over and Article II of the Constitution will likely prevail and keep the judiciary out of the Executive branch. Good day to you sir.
ONLY THE POWER TO ADJUDICATE, NOT EXECUTE
The judicial branch is vested NO executive power by the Constitution and can produce no legal basis to usurp or exercise executive power.
The judicial branch has no authority to exercise executive power in any aspect, facet, degree, or amount.
No legislation or adjudication that usurps and exercises executive power is constitutional.
The executive Power, all of the executive Power, is vested in the President, in exclusion of every other individual, branch, or entity.
The court’s decision can only be that the judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, has the power to adjudicate but not exercise executive power.
The Constitution distributes the unassailable, omnipotent power of the King in distinct and particular areas of governance.
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,…” and those judges must be impeached and convicted “during [bad] Behaviour.”
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
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 key here is that this was a controversial move to review a TRO, which is generally not reviewable. ”
One of the big issues with the Trump team is that they’re going about things the wrong way. By appealing a temporary restraining order that can’t actually be appealed, they’re trying to get their buddies on the Supreme Court to step in and flip the TRO. Turley gets what’s really happening, but he’s trying to cover for the clearly flawed approach to challenging it. They need to show they had the right to do what they did, and they haven’t made that case yet.
Additionally, this situation revolves around the failure to compensate contractors and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for work they have already completed. This suggests that the Trump administration not only neglected its contractual obligations but also exemplified a pattern reminiscent of Trump’s business practices, where he is known to withhold payment from contractors after they have fulfilled their commitments. Such behavior is unlikely to be viewed favorably, even by conservative justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Justice Samuel Alito, on the other hand, appears to be frustrated by his inability to support his preferred president in this instance. He understands that the case should never have reached the Supreme Court given that temporary restraining orders (TROs) typically cannot be appealed. This underscores a potential overreach in legal proceedings that Alito acknowledges, which adds another layer of complexity to the situation at hand.
I’m sorry, but my browser truncated your signature block. Where did you get your law degree? And where are you teaching constitutional law?
The key issue is that it is NOT a TRO, it’s merely fraudulently labelled that as a deliberate ploy to prevent the higher courts from reversing it. Four out of nine justices saw through that ploy and are stunned that the others, who also obviously saw through it, are nevertheless willing to let the district court get away with it.
As Alito points out, there’s nothing temporary about throwing money down the toilet. You can never get it back.
Why couldn’t Chief Justice Roberts could lay down some additional rules to instruct District courts to deflect “political policy” lawsuits brought by activist lawyers after losing an election?