The terse, unsigned ruling was issued by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett together with the court’s three liberal justices. It upholds an earlier order by US District Judge Amir Ali, now tasked with crafting compliance requirements for paying the money. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the dissenting justices, said he was “stunned” by the decision, arguing that it rewarded “judicial hubris” and imposed a significant financial burden on taxpayers.
What was the lawsuit about? The dispute arose from US President Donald Trump's Jan. 20 executive order imposing a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid to ensure “alignment” with his foreign policy objectives. The order prompted aid organizations to sue, alleging that the freeze exceeded presidential authority and violated federal law.
What could this mean for other lawsuits? Eurasia analyst Noah Daponte-Smith says, “The SCOTUS ruling yesterday was more of a procedural than a substantive matter. That said, this is the second time that the court has allowed lower-court injunctions against Trump’s actions to go into effect, which may be an indication of how it will rule once substantive issues reach the court.”
“It is also notable that Barrett — a Trump appointee — sided with Roberts and the three liberal justices, suggesting that a 6-3 conservative majority is by no means unified on the questions of executive authority that the DOGE cases involve.”
