“Supreme Court Halts Release of Frozen Foreign Aid Funding Amid Legal Battle”
The Supreme Court has temporarily halted a lower court order that required the Trump administration to release frozen foreign aid funding by midnight on Wednesday. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris had requested the pause, arguing that the deadline set by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali was arbitrary and causing chaos in the government’s review process.
In response to the government’s efforts to review payment requests and release funds, the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts has called for further information from both parties involved in the case by noon on Friday.
This emergency filing by the Supreme Court comes after a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals moved to dismiss the Trump administration’s appeal. The Justice Department has stated that it needs additional time to unfreeze the foreign aid money, estimating that the process could take “multiple weeks” due to the complexity of payment systems.
The total amount of money to be released is approximately $2 billion, with only $15 million expected to be freed by the end of the day. The district court judge had set the midnight deadline after aid groups and businesses raised concerns about non-compliance with his previous order to unfreeze the aid funds.
These developments highlight the ongoing legal battle surrounding the release of foreign aid funding and the challenges faced by aid groups and businesses awaiting these crucial funds.
In an order issued earlier on Wednesday, a judge raised doubts about the government’s argument that they would require weeks to comply. The judge noted that the defendants had not previously raised this issue in court and had not proposed an alternative schedule for achieving compliance. The judge also highlighted that the defendants had already had nearly two weeks to comply without taking significant steps to release frozen funds.
The aid groups had requested the appeals court not to stay the ruling that froze the funds. They argued that halting payments to American businesses and nonprofits had caused financial turmoil, leading to furloughs and layoffs of thousands of workers and jeopardizing programs that people depended on for survival.
The groups disputed the government’s claim that releasing the funds would take a long time, stating that the defendants had deliberately created obstacles to compliance. They accused the defendants of willfully defying court orders.
The Justice Department insisted that it was compliant with the judge’s order and that an individualized assessment of each contract or grant had been conducted. They reported that over 12,000 awards had been reviewed, with over 10,000 terminated. The groups contested the government’s assertion that the awards had been reviewed thoroughly in a short period and requested to call Secretary of State Marco Rubio as a witness in an upcoming hearing.
The government opposed the request to call Rubio as a witness, arguing that top officials should not be compelled to testify without exceptional circumstances.
The government stated that it was necessary for official actions to be taken. Ali’s orders marked the second instance where a judge found that the administration was not in compliance with a court order. Just recently, a federal judge in Rhode Island discovered that officials were not adhering to his directive to lift a broader spending freeze. These findings raised concerns that the administration might not follow court orders, concerns that were heightened by a social media post from Vice President JD Vance earlier this month. In the post, Vance asserted, “Judges are not permitted to control the executive’s legitimate authority.” During a press briefing in the Oval Office earlier this month, President Trump assured reporters that his administration would adhere to court orders. He stated, “I always respect the decisions of the courts. I always respect them, and if necessary, we will appeal.”
