Supreme Court hands USAID partners a win

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to not pay billions of dollars in foreign aid to USAID and State Department partners — lifting a temporary reprieve granted by Chief Justice John Roberts last Wednesday. The ruling was narrow, at just 5-4, and the Supreme Court did not say exactly when the money — which is for work completed before Feb. 13 — should be repaid. Instead, the case is now back in the hands of the judge who first made the order: U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, who directed the Trump administration to pay its partners nearly $2 billion in foreign assistance last Wednesday. “Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should 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,” wrote the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh all dissented from the decision, stating that Ali had “brushed aside” the government’s arguments and gave them “little time to try to obtain some review of what it regarded as a lawless order.” The move comes nearly three weeks after the Trump administration was ordered to lift its foreign aid freeze, and one week after the government asked the Supreme Court for a temporary reprieve. “The past month of legal maneuvering by the administration has just added to the unconscionable chaos and confusion — in the U.S. and in countries around the world,” said Mitchell Warren, the executive director of the AVAC, one of the organizations suing the administration. “Today’s SCOTUS decision is just one more example of the legal system stepping up with clarity.” It’s the latest in a series of dizzying legal back-and-forths, which began when U.S. President Donald Trump suspended U.S. foreign assistance within hours of taking office. In the weeks that followed, the administration hollowed out USAID and halted the programs the agency was supporting. In early February, a collection of USAID partners filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration — ultimately causing Ali, who was named to the bench by former U.S. President Joe Biden, to issue a temporary restraining order on the funding freeze. However, nearly two weeks later, Ali said he had seen no sign of compliance with the then-12-day order and said the Trump administration needed to pay some $2 billion in foreign assistance by midnight the following day. The government immediately sought reprieve — first from the U.S. Court of Appeals, which denied its request, and then from the Supreme Court. “The district court’s order represents an extraordinary usurpation of the President’s authority, causing significant and irreparable harm,” wrote Sarah Harris, the acting solicitor general, in the emergency motion filed to the Supreme Court last Wednesday. The Trump administration then cut nearly 10,000 grants and contracts from both USAID and the State Department, slicing away 90% of the former’s awards, and 60% of the latter’s. Across the world, organizations began to receive termination notices, including for awards that had been previously granted a waiver to the funding freeze to deliver lifesaving humanitarian aid. Chief Justice Roberts, a conservative appointed by George W. Bush, temporarily lifted Ali’s mandate. But one week later, the court refuted the administration's request, handing the nonprofit organizations and for-profit contractors suing the government a win. “We are encouraged that the administration is being held accountable to live up to its humanitarian commitments through funding appropriated by Congress, but regret the irreparable damage that the Trump administration has already inflicted on our staff, the people we serve, and the reputation of the United States as a leader and a reliable partner,” wrote Mark Hetfield, the head of HIAS, another organization involved in the suit. Ali has set another hearing for Thursday afternoon, which will continue the case back in the district court. While the Supreme Court has determined the government must pay its partners for work completed up to Feb. 13, the case against the Trump administration remains active — one that is pushing to not just reverse the funding freeze, but void the 10,000 terminations (and terminations of those terminations) that have happened since. “Do we think the government will make those payments? I don’t know,” said one lawyer familiar with the case, who spoke on background at a press conference Friday. “They keep saying they actually cannot do it, but we don’t think that’s true. We think they are choosing not to do it.”