Brief SCOTUS Update

The legal folk that I typically resort to are still trying to make sense out of what the SCOTUS did today. Here’s an additional view, from a typically smart legal type:

Ed Whelan @EdWhelanEPPC

By a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court has denied the Trump administration's request that it vacate a district-court order requiring disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. Order calls for district court to clarify what it is ordering government to do. 1/

Please note this. Most media accounts are saying that the Court ordered Trump to pay up. That’s not what the order actually says. This was a procedural ruling that demands clarification. The dissent, in essence, asks: Why are we even asking for clarification about anything from “a "single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction”? Let’s rule on jurisdiction and get this out of the way instead of playing these procedural games—there are serious constitutional issues at stake. We need to get to the heart of those.

Justice Alito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, vigorously dissents in 7-page opinion, says he is "stunned" that majority allows a "single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction [to] have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars." 2/

supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf… 3/

Very fishy that district judge Amir Ali labeled his order an order to enforce a temporary restraining order. Seems clearly designed to take advantage of fact that TROs are generally not appealable. 4/

So, the lower court judge labeled his order as a TRO—but in reality it’s an injunction ordering the government to do something. IOW, Whelan, unlike Shipwreckedcrew, thinks Ali knew exactly what he was doing. He was playing word games to try to game the system for as long as possible—another major irritant to the dissenters.

I don't think that this is the end of this matter. On remand, Judge Ali will need to comply with directive 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." DOJ will likely seek a stay of his order. 5/

This is basically Turley’s view, as well. There are issues still to be dealt with that will come front and center once the “clarification” is made.

There's plenty of room to (1) dispute/question Trump administration's claim of power to impound funds, (2) yet still marvel at a district judge's ordering the administration to make payments and dictating the timing of those payments.

8:22 AM · Mar 5, 2025