In a significant legal development, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a temporary restraining order mandating the release of funds to foreign aid groups, marking a setback for the Trump administration's efforts to withhold payments for completed humanitarian work. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali originally issued the order, which was set to expire on February 26 but has been extended through March 10. The decision applies to payments for work completed before February 13 and requires the administration to release funds promptly to contractors and grant recipients from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department.
The Supreme Court's narrow 5-4 ruling upholds Judge Ali's order, which came in response to the Trump administration's attempt to halt payments to foreign aid organizations. The administration argued that withholding the payments was necessary to scrutinize invoices and "ensure the legitimacy of all payments." However, aid organizations contended that they "would face extraordinary and irreversible harm if the funding freeze continues," emphasizing the critical nature of their work in protecting vulnerable populations worldwide.
The order garnered support from a coalition of plaintiffs, including the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Journalism Development Network, DAI Global, and HIAS. These groups initiated a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of exceeding its authority under federal law and the U.S. Constitution. The legal battle represents broader efforts by the administration to dismantle independent federal agencies and cancel congressionally authorized spending.
Lawyers representing the foreign aid groups argued that "the government's actions have largely brought this work to a halt," highlighting the detrimental impact of funding freezes on global humanitarian efforts. They further criticized the administration for creating an emergency scenario, stating it "comes to this court with an emergency of its own making."
The Trump administration opposed the order, viewing it as an overreach of judicial authority. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris filed a Supreme Court appeal on March 3, arguing that the order provided insufficient time for the administration to review payment requests and ensure their validity.
Despite these contentions, the Supreme Court's decision is seen as a triumph for global aid groups. They argue that the U.S.'s withdrawal from these projects endangers millions of lives worldwide, underscoring the importance of continued American support for humanitarian work.
The restraining order issued by Judge Ali represents a critical moment in balancing executive power with judicial oversight. The decision reflects judicial recognition of the essential role foreign aid plays in addressing global challenges and mitigating harm to some of the world's most vulnerable communities.
Leave a Reply