US foreign aid legal showdown heads to the Supreme Court

The lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s decisions on how to spend foreign aid is heading to the Supreme Court in a case that has broader implications for who controls U.S. government spending. The administration asked the high court to intervene on Monday after a lower court compelled it to spend foreign assistance funds that have already been appropriated by Congress. That sets up a potential fight in the highest court in one of the most closely watched battles over not only foreign aid dollars but also how much power the executive branch has over government spending, which is typically the purview of Congress. It’s a test that key administration officials, including budget chief Russell Vought, have said they want, arguing that the executive branch and the president should be able to spend less than what Congress intended. The administration made the emergency filing to the Supreme Court to stop the lower court’s injunction requiring that the administration spend the appropriated funds before they expire on Sept. 30, as it weighs the case. The administration argues that the district court injunction is unlawful and "precipitates an unnecessary emergency and needless interbranch conflict.” “The injunction raises a grave and urgent threat to the separation of powers,” it said. The administration said the court is compelling it to obligate $10.5 billion by Sept. 30, with little time “for review or compliance.” They added that they had already planned to spend $6.5 billion, but argued that being forced to comply, and especially commit the remaining $4 billion on short notice, would be “untenable” as the legal process plays out. The administration has separately told Congress it is seeking to rescind $4.9 billion in foreign assistance funds. “The President can hardly speak with one voice in foreign affairs or in dealings with Congress when the district court is forcing the Executive Branch to advocate against its own objectives,” the administration argues. The lawsuits — the legal challenge is actually two cases joined together — were first filed in February by a coalition of foreign aid implementing partners, including large for-profit companies and nonprofit aid organizations. They challenged the administration’s freeze of foreign assistance on a number of grounds and asked the court to compel the administration to pay its partners for work that had been performed. In a series of orders, Judge Amir Ali of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., ordered the government to pay for completed work and instructed the administration to obligate congressionally appropriated foreign assistance funds by Sept. 30, the end of the 2025 fiscal year. But the Trump administration appealed, and the appeals court reversed Ali’s decision, ruling that the administration can cut billions in foreign assistance funding on the basis that the organizations did not have the legal standing to bring the lawsuit under claims that the freeze violated the Constitution. But the appeals judges later revised their opinion on whether plaintiffs had the legal right to sue, sending the issue back to the district court. That resulted in new filings and Judge Ali issuing a new preliminary injunction last week, requiring the Trump administration to obligate or make available congressionally appropriated foreign assistance funding before it expires Sept. 30. Ali pointed out that while in the past the administration argued that its role is to “exercise discretion” on how to spend the funds, it is now explicitly saying that it will spend only part of the appropriated funds. That was demonstrated in part by the “pocket rescission” that the White House recently sent to Congress. Unlike a regular rescission that aims to claw back funds already approved by Congress, a pocket rescission is made so late in the year that Congress does not have enough time required by law to respond, resulting in the likely expiration of the money. “Defendants do not have any discretion as to whether to spend the funds,” Ali wrote in his injunction, but added that the administration still has the ability to decide how to spend that money. The order would also become moot if Congress approved the rescission. The administration then requested that a district court panel issue a stay, or pause, on the injunction pending appeal, which was rejected on Friday. That led to the administration requesting a stay from the Supreme Court on Monday. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the stay with the Supreme Court on Monday as well, arguing that the government will not suffer irreparable harm while the court considers the issue, but that an administrative stay could essentially negate the issue and result in the government impounding — or choosing not to spend — billions of dollars Congress had approved.