The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) recently ruled against President Donald Trump’s request to freeze $2 billion of USAID payments.
President Trump had asked SCOTUS to reaffirm the US’ freezing of $2 billion USAID ‘reimbursement’ payments to companies for work that had already allegedly been performed.
However, in a 5-4 ruling, SCOTUS rejected Trump’s request, ruling instead that the US had to pay the $2 billion.
The USAID funding dispute reached SCOTUS after a group of American businesses and nonprofits that receive foreign-assistance funds from the State Department and USAID filed suit at the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
After the DC district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and demanded payment be made within a short timeframe, the US government appealed unsuccessfully to the US Court of Appeals and then to SCOTUS to freeze the payment.
SCOTUS ultimately sided with the district court and ordered the government to pay out the $2 billion, adding that the lower court must “clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill.”
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
“Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers,” said the justices.
The DC district court, argued the justices, does not have “the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars.”
According to the justices, SCOTUS should have allowed the US government to halt the $2 billion payment until it could appeal the district court’s decision that the US must pay the $2 billion.
However, the US government did not challenge the order that the $2 billion be paid out but the timeline for payment that the district court imposed on the US government.
The dissenting justices argued SCOTUS should have nonetheless intervened and rejected the district court’s timeline given the US government will likely prevail in challenging the original ruling requiring payment of the $2 billion.
