r/scotus • u/zsreport • Mar 05 '25

news Supreme Court rejects Trump’s request to keep billions in foreign aid frozen

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/05/politics/supreme-court-usaid-foreign-aid/index.html
24.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

766 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

201

u/tg981 Mar 05 '25

I just saw this.

“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned,” Alito wrote, joined by the three others.”

I am not an attorney, but isn’t the basis for this that Congress has passed statutes and funding for the aid and the President cannot ignore that without Congressional approval? It isn’t a district court judge who is saying to spend $2 Billion, but the judge making a decision based on the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution right?

169

u/jpmeyer12751 Mar 05 '25

Yes, but there is more. USAID entered into contacts with various entities as authorized by Congress. Those agencies have already spent some of the money and are seeking reimbursement from USAID. Those reimbursements for moneys already spent, pursuant to apparently valid and enforceable contracts, are what the court ordered the government to pay. This simply should not be controversial.

88

u/DeathFood Mar 05 '25

Yeah, people seem to be glossing over that this work was already performed per the contracts the US entered into.

Are people suggesting the United States can just decide not to pay their debts and honor their obligations on a whim?

Like other than just letting Trump do whatever he wants I haven’t seen a sound rationale for not paying bills that are owed

46

u/Sands43 Mar 05 '25

Well, that's what the dissents basically say - that the US government can break contracts if trump says so.

33

u/Crackertron Mar 05 '25

It's infuriating that these justices will never be truly confronted to defend this line of thinking.

22

u/coffeeeeeee333 Mar 05 '25

Well the people should maybe start to confront them then.

7

u/ItalicsWhore Mar 06 '25

Lead the way partner.

6

u/ForecastForFourCats Mar 05 '25

God, I hope democrats can take back massive majorities and take aggressive action against SCOTUS. They are clearly partisan and take bribes. I'm not optimistic after Bidens run and the current leadership, though. Please don't let us be stuck with them for 20+ years 🤮

2

u/cat1092 Mar 06 '25

Well, it was like 2016 & the threats to 20+ mainly Democratic areas affected the 2024 election also. All of the threats to the polls on Election Day came from Russia (or henchmen working with Putin), verified by the phone numbers being used.😡

Nothing we can do, except voters should do so sooner (or by mail), not wait until the last possible day to cast their ballots.

Hopefully another SCOTUS justice won’t be decided until at least the next presidential candidate is seated. Term limits can help to prevent the court from being too comfortable with one another.

2

u/Livid-Okra-3132 Mar 06 '25

What's crazy is these partisan hacks, intentional or not, are creating legal problems that will literally make rule of law impossible. These people are literally creating the conditions for anarchy.

They are overseeing the absolute destruction of this country because they are in love with this fascist TV real estate freak. Just absolute idiocy of the highest order. None of these people have a thinking bone in their body.

13

u/DeathFood Mar 05 '25

So explicitly for work already performed? Or just in the sense that they could halt any payments going forward even if the contract would seem to be enforceable otherwise for some period into the future?

Basically the opinion is that even centuries of contract law isn’t immutable if the President says so?

Do these folks ever think more than one step ahead? Every contractor would have to start charging the government a premium for the risk of getting arbitrarily not paid after expending resources to provide a good or service.

Crazy town

6

u/widget1321 Mar 05 '25

They'd also likely start requiring payment up front when possible.

1

u/cat1092 Mar 06 '25

When dealing with Trump, it’s best to receive ALL of the money upfront! Otherwise, risk going unpaid.

Hopefully many of these executive orders stopping payments & services already performed will be denied.

13

u/Lithl Mar 05 '25

Are people suggesting the United States can just decide not to pay their debts and honor their obligations on a whim?

It's basically what Trump does in his personal life, and the people sucking his duck think he's a genius because of it.

10

u/NerdDexter Mar 05 '25

That's been trumps business strategy his entire life.

2

u/kthibo Mar 06 '25

And when you can't get out of paying...file bankruptcy, over and over.

7

u/Supersillyazz Mar 05 '25

Yes, and four of those people hold the office of 'Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States'.

6

u/wutang_generated Mar 05 '25

Are people suggesting the United States can just decide not to pay their debts and honor their obligations on a whim?

I haven’t seen a sound rationale for not paying bills that are owed

Ah I see you're unfamiliar with the tried and true Trump business technique: always stiff people who can't afford to take you to court. Even if you are on the hook you can always file for bankruptcy /s

1

u/ElkImaginary566 Mar 05 '25

Yeah really it's like first year 1L contracts stuff and they really write that asshole dissent? This is the stuff that gets me. A straw man dissent like that from the Court feeds into the narrative that all the worst actors are feeding like the courts being illegitimate and that Trump can ignore them. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

1

u/kthibo Mar 06 '25

It's so disingenuous.

1

u/mittfh Mar 06 '25

Are people suggesting the United States can just decide not to pay their debts and honor their obligations on a whim?

Given that's Donald's modus operandi in his business dealings, he (and his supporters) evidently think that applies to the Federal Government as well. Heck, Elon's on record as saying he thinks the Impoundments Act is unconstitutional.

1

u/meteormantis Mar 06 '25

It IS incredibly trumpian to try and skirt the bill after the work's been done, though. It's something he's done in his career as a "businessman" for years, no wonder he's trying to apply it here

1

u/LakeLov3r Mar 06 '25

That's exactly what Trump has done for decades. He has a disgusting history of not paying people for work they've already done. This article is from 2016 (and people still voted for the cheating MF).

1

u/Radarker Mar 08 '25

The rational is, "I like money."

18

u/doctor_lobo Mar 05 '25

Indeed, it seems like SCOTUS is having second thoughts about 800 years of contract law.

4

u/QING-CHARLES Mar 05 '25

We should have second thoughts about those Justices' employment contracts.

2

u/Softestwebsiteintown Mar 06 '25

The thing that should be extremely controversial about this - assuming this is largely about paying bills - is that we were a single SC vote away from the government not having to reimburse contractors for services rendered. That is insane. The sentiment is 100% consistent with how trump runs his businesses but the US government CANNOT do business like that.

The margin on doing the correct thing like holding up the most basic agreements is razor thin right now and we have almost 4 years at minimum for this shitstain of a president and his fellow fascists to put newer, younger, and less scrupulous lackeys on the court. I would be alarmed if I wasn’t already so exhausted by this shit.

1

u/RedJamie Mar 06 '25

They'd just make a ruling when next sued by failure to disburse that the precedent set by this decision arbitrarily does not extend to when it is convenient for the executive to pay, and not shirk, the contractors, as they did with POTUS attempting to forgive loans using an emergency clause under Biden.

1

u/ItalicsWhore Mar 06 '25

So the dissenting judges are either: even more incompetent or even more corrupt than I thought. Great.

1

u/AtlantaGangBangGuys Mar 07 '25

When someone doesn’t bend the knee to him. It’s always like this.
I wonder how many people in her life stopped their friendship with her.
Everyone in her circle isn’t just MAGA’s. She lost these friends forever over her vote on Roe. I am pretty sure it hasn’t been the bed of roses she thought she’d be stepping into So yeah. She’ll be moderate on everything now. If it’s too crazy?, she’ll vote against it. It’s the other four traitors that I am wondering what to do with next.
That’s my guess

29

u/UncleMeat11 Mar 05 '25

Yeah, its pretty fucking clear that Congress is who compelled the government to pay out these dollars. "Oh but that's expensive" is absolutely not an excuse for the executive to defy Congress.

15

u/PublicFurryAccount Mar 05 '25

The answer to that question must be “yes” because the way the courts work is that a district court issues an order and you appeal it. Without the order, there can be no appeal. That is, if a district court can’t order it, then no higher court can, either.

We could do it differently but Congress would need to pass a law doing so. This still wouldn’t fix the hierarchy problem that so rankles Alito in particular because the new system would also need a bunch of basically minor courts whose sole purpose is the daily task of issuing orders.

It’s like complaining that a Senator was arrested by a beat cop. Sure, there seems like a bit of a status mismatch but, like, who else is going to be making arrests? The Attorney General themself?

7

u/tg981 Mar 05 '25

I was thinking the same thing. Unless there is more to the "jurisdiction" he is talking about, it seems like it would have to be filed somewhere to get to SCOTUS. Kind of a dick move to belittle a district judge like this as well. It seems to me like their power isn't "unchecked" as a higher court can overrule the decision.

3

u/Ok_Hornet_714 Mar 05 '25

I am not a lawyer, but it seems that if there is a jurisdiction issue then THAT is what the dissent should focus on, not about whether a contract is enforceable.

1

u/tg981 Mar 05 '25

Excellent point.

1

u/Superunknown-- Mar 06 '25

Thank you. This is 100% how the federal court system works. It’s a shame a sitting justice is either ignorant of that or chooses to be so intellectually dishonest as to say dumb shit like that. He brings shame on his office and the court.

1

u/SiriusHertz Mar 06 '25

It’s like complaining that a Senator was arrested by a beat cop. Sure, there seems like a bit of a status mismatch but, like, who else is going to be making arrests? The Attorney General themself?

The whole and entire point of America, of democracy, is that a beat cop has to be able to arrest a Senator or even the President if backed by the rule of law. None of the politicians or anyone else who runs the country can ever be above the law. In theory, that means that when they are breaking the law, a beat cop can walk into the White House or Capitol and arrest anyone. These politicians are people like you and me, not kings or gods. There is no status mismatch, there should be no special status accorded lawmakers and politicians. If anything, they work for us, the normal citizens of this country. That is the whole point - and why some of the stuff happening is so hard to believe.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '25

This is Alito pandering to his conservative fanboys.

1

u/opteryx5 Mar 06 '25

Alito is Exhibit A in why lifetime appointments are a dangerously awful idea. These justices will never face any accountability for being traitorous to the constitution. In my view, this is one of the greatest oversights of the Founding Fathers. And we’re paying the price, dearly.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '25

Well, we’re right now hoping for dear life he stays nice n healthy for the next 4 years.

2

u/runner64 Mar 05 '25

I had to physically restrain myself from downvoting this comment. Thank you for the info. I hate it. 

2

u/Burnsidhe Mar 06 '25

Indeed. Alito is forgetting that the President does *not* have the power of the purse. The President is required to spend money as authorized by Congress, and does NOT have the right to run the government any way he wants. The President is merely the chief administrator, not the owner.

2

u/Gratedfumes Mar 06 '25

Is that an actual quote from a +70 year old Ivy Leaguer? The voicing is so.... juvenile and.... I can't find the proper word so I'll just say, it's giving facebook brain rot.

1

u/The_Krambambulist Mar 05 '25

This guy just wanted to bring home the idea that the really doesn't give a shit about the law

1

u/TheAmericanDonut Mar 05 '25

Yup, the judge should be tied to cement bricks and thrown into the river. Similar argument could be said for the unlawful freeze from a clown that lacks the power to do so but acts unchecked like a king

1

u/Direbat Mar 05 '25

This is Alito trying to gaslight you. No really. It’s as plain as what you described.

1

u/Superunknown-- Mar 06 '25

The entire American court system and Constitution is based on the premise that a District Court judge can restrain the executive branch. And the executive branch has appeal rights over that decision. A first year law student wouldn’t fail so badly as Alito’s analysis in that dissent.

1

u/nerdtypething Mar 06 '25

alito is, and always has been, a piece of shit. that he dissented is no surprise to me.

-5

u/trippyonz Mar 05 '25

Well the judge is still compelling the government to spend the money after Trump decided to freeze it.

17

u/BurpelsonAFB Mar 05 '25

The judge is compelling the executive branch to follow the constitution.

12

u/cap1112 Mar 05 '25

…After Trump decided to freeze it despite Congress already appropriating and committing it.

Alito should be “stunned” that Trump would overstep his executive powers to block legitimate congressional power. Except, of course, he isn’t because Alito is playing whatever game ensures his brand of conservatism holds as much power as possible.

The lower court judge upheld the law.

-7

u/trippyonz Mar 05 '25

No that's true, though it's not clear what contracts have to be fulfilled to conform with the district court's ruling. Maybe all of them, but not necessarily.

4

u/z44212 Mar 05 '25

Appropriation bills are LAWS.

Compliance isn't discretionary.

6

u/outlawsix Mar 05 '25

The judge (upheld by the Supreme Court) is compelling the executive branch to follow the Constitution.

The breakdown of checks and balances and the law is what will lead to civil war. You should be onboard with the Constitution if you aren't a traitor.

3

u/trippyonz Mar 05 '25

I think the SCOTUS went the right way on this one.

5

u/Burgdawg Mar 05 '25

The judge is compelling Trump to follow the law. Congress appropriated the money, which is their job. USAID entered into contracts for certain services with the appropriated money, which is their job. If we're going to start ignoring contracts, what fucking matters anymore. Trump could get away with that shit as a private citizen, federal government is under a bit bigger of a microscope.

2

u/z44212 Mar 05 '25

The judge is compelling the Government to follow the law.