Consider: does this decision actually comport with other Roberts Court decisions? One can argue yes. This is not about jurisdiction. It is about politics, in at least two ways. One, political process and its decisions matter. Recall the cases around Obama Care. There are remedies that do not demand the Courts say do or do not do whatever. Congress passed legislation. The President signed. Things were then done. This cannot be unwound. Important to note the past tense.
Two, the ending note to the lower court can be viewed as a shot across the bow to the lower courts generally as well as Congress (more cases are on the way and everyone knows it!) - the courts must be specific in the why and remedies and Congress cannot simply make blanket claims requiring the executive to do whatever and then restrict his methods, ability to hire/fire, etc.
Justice Scalia said late in life that the real way to view the Constitution is NOT by trying to divine what it prohibits when not spelled out, but to understand what it Demands be done!
Roberts is well aware that Presidents can and do ignore the Court at times and that the Court defends itself strictly by its opinions.
This can be seen as a warning before the potential storm: figure out some political remedies before these other cases get to us, since we don’t have a scalpel, just a meat cleaver.
I am not defending, and there is much to be taken from the dissenting opinions. Also, the Dems/GOP/Globalists will not take hints. They will go out on their shields, so to speak.
It’s not hard to see how much can go sideways, or that some want things to go sideways. Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall long ago…
Again to borrow from Scalia: politics can do its job…or the Executive will and ask for forgiveness later…;)
OK, this exchange does a good job of balancing what went on:
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
Reposting this to respond as I'm seeing many folks noting this relates to work already done:
a) What Court order requires is payment NOW without reviewing whether money is actually due under contract/grant for what work was performed;
b) EVEN if it is due this Court has no power to enforce--you have to collect in suit in Court of Claims.
Shipwreckedcrew @shipwreckedcrew
There are allegations in the complaint and the briefing that many claims are in a status where all the paperwork is in order and the only thing that hasn’t happened is for the money to go out.
**That doesn’t solve the jurisdictional issue** but I think it plays into the “equities” as to some number of claims - the pause was put in place when the “normal course” had only payment left to happen.
-------------------------------------
Me: I don't understand why the SCOTUS couldn't have just told the District Court the first time around: This case goes to Court of Claims. Makes no sense to me.
Well, if the worst case scenario goes through and USAID gets "Its" money, DJT can still put DOGE on their backs to ensure that EVERY single cent of that money is spent in the correct way. If not, sackings and prosecutions to follow.
I don't much care for these contractors or their contracts or the work. But I've got to admit, that's a pretty reasonable order. (Jurisdictional issues aside, since I don't understand all that.)
No. This was procedural. The lower court was directed to write a new order that would be somehow more clear than the previous one. Which order can again be appealed.
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."
Pelosi, clenching her cane, looked like she was going to melt away in agony like the WW of the West! The rest were writhing in discomfort and disdain, flashing absurd little signs. Not one ounce of respect or expression of collegiality - so un-American. Shocking.
This article summarizes in very readable form what the commentary I've been quoting is saying. Basically, this was another procedural ruling. For my part, I share the frustration of Alito et alios--there's a time and place for proceduralism and a time and place for cutting to the chase when courts are mishandling basic constitutional issues.
CJ Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Souter are NOT squishes! They are anti-Trump. There is a difference. The Devil is not in the details, as complicated as are these issues. The 'big picture" is simpler: they do not like Trump and will continue to put sand in the MAGA gears.
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.
OK. More commentary coming online. This revolves around what are fairly technical procedural issues. Some are saying this was actually another "punt", others are saying, No, the jurisdiction issue is fundamental and should have been addressed:
Sean Ross Callaghan @seanrcallaghan
It's just a punt. The Justice Department failed to challenge at the Supreme Court the first and underlying order enjoining the pause on disbursement, leaving the only issue for the Court the time allowed in the second order to comply. On that, the Court sided with the applicants.
You have Order One that tells you to do X.
You have Order Two that tells you to do X within 36 hours.
If you appeal Order Two, which is not normally appealable, but not Order One, the most a stickler like Roberts is likely to give you is more time—which is exactly what he gave.
Dan McLaughlin @baseballcrank
To say that this is just about breaches of contract is to concede Alito's argument that it's subject to the exclusive statutory jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, not properly before Judge Ali, & thus beyond Judge Ali's power to order.
Sean Ross Callaghan @seanrcallaghan
What you're eliding is that, as noted in the per curium opinion on the order (likely written by the Chief), there is currently no order-to-disburse by a deadline in effect—and we are now at the preliminary injunction stage.
so glad you found that and shared -- and as explained it makes perfect sense and supports CJR and even ACB -- why set a whole new course on a faulty/improper footing, and while there is clearly enough frustration (as dissent shows), CJR knows he can't decide an issue that is NOT before him -- i feel better, for now... : /
I would bring the contractors into a meeting with DoJ prosecutors and FBI investigators and tell them, "You can have the money and the hammer or you can walk out of here, you can't have both."
Great idea and plan -- if they involve T my guess is they would; if left to downstream folks not so sure. T is out for justice the optics be damned, Pocahontas?!!! That said it all.
Consider: does this decision actually comport with other Roberts Court decisions? One can argue yes. This is not about jurisdiction. It is about politics, in at least two ways. One, political process and its decisions matter. Recall the cases around Obama Care. There are remedies that do not demand the Courts say do or do not do whatever. Congress passed legislation. The President signed. Things were then done. This cannot be unwound. Important to note the past tense.
Two, the ending note to the lower court can be viewed as a shot across the bow to the lower courts generally as well as Congress (more cases are on the way and everyone knows it!) - the courts must be specific in the why and remedies and Congress cannot simply make blanket claims requiring the executive to do whatever and then restrict his methods, ability to hire/fire, etc.
Justice Scalia said late in life that the real way to view the Constitution is NOT by trying to divine what it prohibits when not spelled out, but to understand what it Demands be done!
Roberts is well aware that Presidents can and do ignore the Court at times and that the Court defends itself strictly by its opinions.
This can be seen as a warning before the potential storm: figure out some political remedies before these other cases get to us, since we don’t have a scalpel, just a meat cleaver.
I am not defending, and there is much to be taken from the dissenting opinions. Also, the Dems/GOP/Globalists will not take hints. They will go out on their shields, so to speak.
It’s not hard to see how much can go sideways, or that some want things to go sideways. Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall long ago…
Again to borrow from Scalia: politics can do its job…or the Executive will and ask for forgiveness later…;)
Roberts has repeatedly shown himself to be a liberal judge wearing a transparent cloak of conservatism. I would never trust him. Not Ever.
OK, this exchange does a good job of balancing what went on:
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
Reposting this to respond as I'm seeing many folks noting this relates to work already done:
a) What Court order requires is payment NOW without reviewing whether money is actually due under contract/grant for what work was performed;
b) EVEN if it is due this Court has no power to enforce--you have to collect in suit in Court of Claims.
Shipwreckedcrew @shipwreckedcrew
There are allegations in the complaint and the briefing that many claims are in a status where all the paperwork is in order and the only thing that hasn’t happened is for the money to go out.
**That doesn’t solve the jurisdictional issue** but I think it plays into the “equities” as to some number of claims - the pause was put in place when the “normal course” had only payment left to happen.
-------------------------------------
Me: I don't understand why the SCOTUS couldn't have just told the District Court the first time around: This case goes to Court of Claims. Makes no sense to me.
Well, if the worst case scenario goes through and USAID gets "Its" money, DJT can still put DOGE on their backs to ensure that EVERY single cent of that money is spent in the correct way. If not, sackings and prosecutions to follow.
USAID doesn't get funded. The order is that contractors get paid if they finished the contracted work.
I don't much care for these contractors or their contracts or the work. But I've got to admit, that's a pretty reasonable order. (Jurisdictional issues aside, since I don't understand all that.)
Well, that means the money's gone, I guess.
No. This was procedural. The lower court was directed to write a new order that would be somehow more clear than the previous one. Which order can again be appealed.
Good. Then let's hope this gets sorted. The last thing we need is a squishy Scotus.
Narrow commentary:
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/03/05/down-but-not-out-supreme-court-rules-5-4-against-the-administration-over-hold-on-2-billion-in-usaid-funds/
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."
Pelosi, clenching her cane, looked like she was going to melt away in agony like the WW of the West! The rest were writhing in discomfort and disdain, flashing absurd little signs. Not one ounce of respect or expression of collegiality - so un-American. Shocking.
Her interview after was shocking. She's a shell of her former combative self.
It’s Robert’s trying to appear non political and even handed with Trump, by being political.
Basically he is ruling against Trump on unpaid bills, who could argue with that, while knowing he will need to rule for Trump on some other cases.
This article summarizes in very readable form what the commentary I've been quoting is saying. Basically, this was another procedural ruling. For my part, I share the frustration of Alito et alios--there's a time and place for proceduralism and a time and place for cutting to the chase when courts are mishandling basic constitutional issues.
https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2025/03/05/breaking-supreme-court-rules-on-trump-administrations-application-for-stay-in-usaid-funding-case-n2186297
CJ Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Souter are NOT squishes! They are anti-Trump. There is a difference. The Devil is not in the details, as complicated as are these issues. The 'big picture" is simpler: they do not like Trump and will continue to put sand in the MAGA gears.
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.
OK. More commentary coming online. This revolves around what are fairly technical procedural issues. Some are saying this was actually another "punt", others are saying, No, the jurisdiction issue is fundamental and should have been addressed:
Sean Ross Callaghan @seanrcallaghan
It's just a punt. The Justice Department failed to challenge at the Supreme Court the first and underlying order enjoining the pause on disbursement, leaving the only issue for the Court the time allowed in the second order to comply. On that, the Court sided with the applicants.
You have Order One that tells you to do X.
You have Order Two that tells you to do X within 36 hours.
If you appeal Order Two, which is not normally appealable, but not Order One, the most a stickler like Roberts is likely to give you is more time—which is exactly what he gave.
Dan McLaughlin @baseballcrank
To say that this is just about breaches of contract is to concede Alito's argument that it's subject to the exclusive statutory jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, not properly before Judge Ali, & thus beyond Judge Ali's power to order.
Sean Ross Callaghan @seanrcallaghan
What you're eliding is that, as noted in the per curium opinion on the order (likely written by the Chief), there is currently no order-to-disburse by a deadline in effect—and we are now at the preliminary injunction stage.
so glad you found that and shared -- and as explained it makes perfect sense and supports CJR and even ACB -- why set a whole new course on a faulty/improper footing, and while there is clearly enough frustration (as dissent shows), CJR knows he can't decide an issue that is NOT before him -- i feel better, for now... : /
Roberts is an unreliable squish. You mistake his squishiness for being 'cautious'
I would bring the contractors into a meeting with DoJ prosecutors and FBI investigators and tell them, "You can have the money and the hammer or you can walk out of here, you can't have both."
Great idea and plan -- if they involve T my guess is they would; if left to downstream folks not so sure. T is out for justice the optics be damned, Pocahontas?!!! That said it all.