Lawyers representing groups opposing the Trump administration’s push to freeze billions in foreign aid funding have urged the Supreme Court to uphold a federal judge’s directive requiring the government to commit $4 billion of those funds by September 30.
In response to President Donald Trump’s request to recover the funds through a process known as ‘pocket rescission,’ the government has informed the justices that complying with the judge’s order is not feasible.
On Friday, the challengers argued that the ’emergency’ being cited by the government is a situation of its own creation, emphasizing that the administration has been obliged to spend the appropriated funds since at least March 2024.
Chief Justice John Roberts had previously issued a temporary administrative stay on Tuesday, pausing the lower court’s order as the court deliberates on the government’s appeal.
This case marks another pivotal moment in a long-standing dispute initiated shortly after Trump’s second term began. On January 20, his executive order claimed that the U.S. foreign aid structure is misaligned with national interests and often runs counter to American values.
In that executive order, President Trump mandated that no further foreign assistance be dispersed in a manner inconsistent with his administration’s foreign policy.
A few days later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a freeze on all foreign aid funding through the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This was intended to allow for a thorough review of foreign assistance programs to ensure alignment with the Trump administration’s ‘America First’ agenda.
Several nonprofit organizations that previously received foreign assistance funds moved to challenge the freeze, resulting in a lawsuit filed in Washington. On February 25, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the State Department and USAID to make payments to contractors and grant recipients for previously completed work within 36 hours.
The Trump administration sought intervention from the Supreme Court on February 26. However, by a narrow 5-4 vote, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett siding with the three Democratic-appointed justices, the court declined to lift Ali’s order, noting that the deadline for compliance had already lapsed.
The court instructed Judge Ali to clarify the obligations of the government in meeting the temporary restraining order, particularly regarding the feasibility of compliance with the timelines set forth.
Following this, Ali ruled on March 6 that the Trump administration’s freeze on foreign aid funds was likely in violation of both federal law and the Constitution. He mandated that the administration make available the full amount of funds allocated by Congress for obligation.
Once again, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court to block Ali’s order, but following actions from a federal appeals court, the request became moot.
On Monday, the Trump administration sought emergency relief once again after Ali mandated that they must commit to $4 billion in funding by the end of the current fiscal year, September 30. Judge Ali noted that while the government has significant discretion in spending the funds, it lacks any discretionary power regarding the decision to spend the funds in the first place.
In its appeal, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Ali’s ruling poses a significant threat to the balance of powers established in the Constitution. He referenced the Impoundment Control Act, claiming the administration’s proposal to rescind the funds legally precludes them from complying with the court’s order.
The administration argued that funds can be frozen for up to 45 days while Congress assesses the president’s request, and that because this proposal came less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year, it constitutes a pocket rescission.
The government’s position emphasized that this legal framework prevents them from committing to the expenditure mandated by Ali.
Challengers countered that the administration’s argument relies on a flawed premise. They pointed out that while the House received the president’s rescission request on August 28, the Senate did not receive it until September 8, contradicting the law’s requirement that rescission proposals be presented to both chambers of Congress on the same day.
This delay implies that the 45-day consideration period could not have legally commenced until September 9, and thus may not have been triggered at all.
Moreover, challengers asserted that if the government’s interpretation of the law holds, it grants the president excessive powers to impound funds, effectively nullifying Congress’s legislative authority to challenge such actions in court.
They reasoned that Congress would never have designed legislation intended to regulate fund impoundments that simultaneously undermines its own authority.
As the Supreme Court reviews the complexities of this case, the outcome could have lasting impacts on the separation of powers and foreign assistance funding negotiations moving forward.
image source from：scotusblog
