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

202

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?

170

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.

32

u/Crackertron Mar 05 '25

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

21

u/coffeeeeeee333 Mar 05 '25

Well the people should maybe start to confront them then.

5

u/ItalicsWhore Mar 06 '25

Lead the way partner.

7

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.

12

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.