"I Am Stunned" - SCOTUS Dissenters Rage As 'Liberals' Unfreeze $2BN USAID Foreign-Aid Payments
In a 5-4 vote, The US Supreme Court refused to bolster President Donald Trump’s foreign-aid freeze, reinstating a lower court order that requires the quick disbursement of as much as $2 billion owed to contractors for already completed work.
Over four dissents, the justices rejected Trump’s request to toss out the trial court order, which affects money owed by the US Agency for International Development and State Department.
The dissent by Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh was extremely strongly worded:
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.
...
Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.
The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered 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.
I would chart a different path than the Court does today, so I must respectfully dissent.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Barrett sided with the liberal members of the court.
The ruling states that the government must pay for work that was already done, and doesn’t address cutting funding going forward. Which seems limited. I did wonder about that, but the issue of jurisdiction—which seemingly was always so important to Roberts—remains. Margot Cleveland sees it all as an outrage:
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
on SCOTUS order on denial in AIDS Vaccine/Global Health Case. Justice Alito's dissent said it best when he opened with "I am stunned." But a note on what the majority actually did, which is slightly different than it appears--and is even more outrageous. 1/
2/ In denying the Application, the majority added this sentence. What does that mean? The majority is stressing the lower court Order the Trump Administration challenged isn't currently operative & it is telling Court it needs to enter a new order w/ more clarity.
I think what Margot is asking is, How does the SCOTUS order the enforcement of a “not currently operative” lower court order? I’m sure there will be lots more commentary, but I’ll sure need to reconsider my view of Roberts.
Thanks for reading Meaning In History! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Polling re Trump's speech seems relevant. CBS/YouGov:
The CBS/YouGov poll taken in the wake of the speech told the tale: 76 percent of the viewers approved. 
Not only that, but 63 percent felt that Trump spent a lot of time on the issues that they cared about. Sixty-eight percent felt that Trump had a clear plan to deal with inflation. A large majority liked what they heard on immigration, waste, and Ukraine.
Plus, the majority also found the speech "presidential, "inspiring," and more "unifying" than "divisive," not to mention "entertaining." Most viewers also said the speech made them feel "hopeful" and "proud."
Margot Cleveland is continuing to write on Twitter as we try to follow. She appears to agree that this was another "punt"--that the case is **far from over**--but maintains that such proceduralism is not prudent. That the jurisdictional issue is too central to leave hanging for any amount of time:
"The majority is stressing the lower court Order the Trump Administration challenged isn't currently operative & it is telling Court it needs to enter a new order w/ more clarity. And is suggesting to the lower court that the order it entered was inappropriate. The majority, or rather Barrett & Roberts since the three leftist justices will vote as block against all things Trump, are still living in a fantasy world thinking they are being prudent."
Michael Sowa @MJSKWU
The court is chastising the lower court and asking them to write a proper order that gets into the right level of detail. Once done, the Government can appeal again. Then SCOTUS will have a more full record to review.
Polling re Trump's speech seems relevant. CBS/YouGov:
The CBS/YouGov poll taken in the wake of the speech told the tale: 76 percent of the viewers approved. 
Not only that, but 63 percent felt that Trump spent a lot of time on the issues that they cared about. Sixty-eight percent felt that Trump had a clear plan to deal with inflation. A large majority liked what they heard on immigration, waste, and Ukraine.
Plus, the majority also found the speech "presidential, "inspiring," and more "unifying" than "divisive," not to mention "entertaining." Most viewers also said the speech made them feel "hopeful" and "proud."
Margot Cleveland is continuing to write on Twitter as we try to follow. She appears to agree that this was another "punt"--that the case is **far from over**--but maintains that such proceduralism is not prudent. That the jurisdictional issue is too central to leave hanging for any amount of time:
"The majority is stressing the lower court Order the Trump Administration challenged isn't currently operative & it is telling Court it needs to enter a new order w/ more clarity. And is suggesting to the lower court that the order it entered was inappropriate. The majority, or rather Barrett & Roberts since the three leftist justices will vote as block against all things Trump, are still living in a fantasy world thinking they are being prudent."
Michael Sowa @MJSKWU
The court is chastising the lower court and asking them to write a proper order that gets into the right level of detail. Once done, the Government can appeal again. Then SCOTUS will have a more full record to review.