On Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court issued Very short order This actually requires the government to pay up to $2 billion in work to foreign aid contractors so that they have already done the work. The court order is very narrow and unlikely to have many impacts on future cases.
Donald Trump’s administration shortly after his second term took office Attempt to stop funding the United States International Development Agency (USAID). Wednesday’s Supreme Court order is the latest chapter on ongoing lawsuits on whether the funds are legal. In the order, the Supreme Court left a lower court ruling that prohibits the government from “suspend, suspend or otherwise blocking the obligations or payments of diplomatic funds authorized as of January 19.”
So, this is a failure for Trump, but it is an extremely small one. The Supreme Court order has only a long paragraph and mainly says that the court will not make amateur mistakes by attorney Sarah Harris and other Justice Department lawyers engaged in the case, so the court will not make a second because of amateur mistakes.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the case was called State Council v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Alliancevoted 5 to 4 – Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined Judge Samuel Alito’s objection. This means that despite Harris’ mistakes, four justices still support Trump.
Trump’s legal team fights the case by appealing wrong lower court order
On February 13, Federal District Court Judge Amir Ali Illegal arbitrary Because the administration has not yet “provided any explanation of why all the blankets of foreign aid from Congress have stopped… are rational pioneers of reviewing plans” in recognition of inefficiency or failure to comply with Trump’s policy goals.
Twelve days later, the plaintiffs in this case complained that they still had not received payments owed by the government, and Alibaba sent out a second order Seeking to execute his first. The February 25 order requires the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development to pay all invoices and letters of credit to all work contracts completed before entering the court. [first order] February 13. ”
As Alito believes that objectionJudge Ali made a mistake when issuing an order on February 13. For example, it is possible for plaintiffs to file a lawsuit in the wrong court – Alito suggested that the case should have been filed in the federal claims court, rather than in the Ali U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.
But the Trump administration inexplicably did not appeal Alibaba’s February 13 order. Instead, they only proposed the order of February 25, requiring that the first order be executed. This means Alito is concerned that some other lower courts should have heard that the Trump administration has not raised the case correctly.
As most judges explained in Wednesday’s order: “On February 13, the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia signed a temporary restraining order requiring the government to enforce spending on suspension of foreign development aid funds. This application does not challenge the government’s obligation to comply with the order. ”
That being said, the orders of most people do call on Alibaba to “clear the obligations that the government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order and to properly consider the feasibility of any compliance situation”, so most people seem to have some concerns among most people that Alibaba is asking the government to ask the government to resolve it too quickly.
Wednesday’s order avoids the biggest problem raised in this case
Anyway, all the questions most people and dissenters ask AIDS vaccine Order – Whether the government appeals the right order, whether the plaintiff is sued in the right court, and whether Alibaba should proceed with it with more caution – is far from the major constitutional issues raised in this case.
The Trump administration claims to have the right to “Seizure“Federal funds, which means the president can cancel the expenses paid by the Congress bill. But the president does not have this authority under the constitution. As future Chief Justice William Rehnquist Memorandum of the Ministry of Justice in 1969“It seems very difficult to develop a constitutional theory to justify the president’s refusal to comply with congressional directives.”
Kavanuagh agreed with Rehnquist’s view in an opinion written in 2013 as a judge of the lower court, who said “Even the president has no unilateral power to refuse to spend”The funds allocated by Congress.
So if the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Constitution still applies to Donald Trump Uncertain prospects In a court ruling last July, he was allowed to leverage the power of the presidency to commit crimes — one day it would be necessary to rule that Trump could not seize federal spending.
At the moment, however, the court seems content to put the showdown on another day. The Supreme Court is AIDS vaccine The case did not involve these big issues and would largely correct the Justice Department lawyers in future cases.
