WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court turned down an appeal from the Trump administration on Wednesday and kept in place a judge’s order that calls for disbursing nearly $2 billion for overseas projects that were begun before Jan. 20.
The 5-4 decision came in a brief, unsigned order that spoke for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The decision, while temporary and tentative, is the court’s first clear defeat for President Trump in his second term.
Georgetown Law professor Steve Vladeck called it a “modestly positive sign … that even this Supreme Court will stand up, at least in some respects, to the Trump administration.”
The chief justice is a conservative who is likely to side with Trump in disputes over whether the president is free to fire or “remove” agency officials, even if Congress gave them fixed terms.
But Roberts usually prefers a cautious, step-by-step approach. Last week, the chief justice, acting on his own, put the funding dispute on pause in response to a late-evening appeal from Trump lawyers.
At issue were payments to nonprofit groups or private contractors who carry out work overseas that was funded by Congress and approved by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID.
Shortly after taking office, Trump officials froze those payments, including for work that was already completed.
After weighing the issue for several days, Roberts and four others refused to lift the judge’s order.
Instead, they told U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, to “clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.”
Their decision suggests Roberts and Barrett may believe the president has limited authority to “freeze” spending that was already approved by Congress.
Upon his return to the White House, Trump has aggressively asserted his executive powers on several fronts. They include firing officials who are not loyalists and freezing spending that Trump and his billionaire advisor Elon Musk call wasteful.
When these actions are challenged in court, the administration may win on some fronts in the Roberts court and lose on others. But the funding dispute also highlighted the sharp divide inside the court.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a fierce nine-page dissent asserting Trump has a “sovereign immunity” that protects him from being sued.
Whereas the challenges led by the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition said the administration abused its power by freezing funding for contracts and projects that were already underway, Alito said the judge abused his power by blocking Trump’s freeze order.
The administration has “shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its argument that sovereign immunity deprived the District Court (judge’s) jurisdiction to enter its enforcement order,” he wrote.
“Today the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed.
Lawyers for the challengers welcomed the decision as a significant victory.
“Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court confirms that the administration cannot ignore the law,” said Lauren Bateman, an attorney for Public Citizen. “To stop needless suffering and death, the government must now comply with the order issued three weeks ago to lift its unlawful termination of federal assistance.”
But this dispute over funding is far from over. The judge will hold a hearing Thursday.
In early February, Trump’s lawyers told Ali that the State Department needed more time to review the projects funded by USAID. But the judge grew frustrated weeks later when it became clear the administration would not say when the review would be completed.
The underlying legal question is far from resolved. Can the new administration refuse to spend money that has been allocated by Congress, or is it required to disburse the money for contracts and projects that had already begun?
The Supreme Court may agree to hear this case after the judge has finally ruled on the matter.
In his dissent, Alito suggested the court should hear arguments and rule on the case. And should Trump’s lawyers file such an appeal, it would take just four votes to grant review.
