Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court, in a divided 5-4 decision, ruled against President Trump in a ruling that rejected the administration’s request to block an order to the State Department and USAID to pay nearly $2 billion in reimbursements in foreign aid work. According to SCOTUSblog, the opinion was unsigned and brief, instructing U.S District Judge Amir Ali, who issued the order, to “clarify” the obligations of the U.S government in its payments. The four dissenters to the case, led by Justice Samuel Alito, largely consisted of the conservative, “originalist” bloc of the court, including Justices Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch. Contrary to the expectations of many, Justice Barrett declined to join her conservative colleagues in dissent and instead joined Chief Justice Roberts and the Court’s liberal bloc in upholding the order.
Last month, President Trump issued an executive order freezing the distribution of foreign-aid from executive agencies in an attempt to “shape” the direction of funds to fit the foreign policy agenda of the administration. Citing his constitutional powers as vested in Article II of the U.S Constitution, President Trump ordered the Secretary of State, former Senator Marco Rubio, to comply with a 90-day pause in distribution of foreign-aid funds pursuant to section 3(a) of the Executive order. Trump’s order immediately was responded to with numerous lawsuits and appeals. The original case was filed by a group of plaintiffs who have received the funds from foreign aid, arguing that the government’s freeze on funds was illegal under the federal law as well as unconstitutional.
The government’s position was defended by Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris in an amicus brief, which conveyed the administration’s position of holding the order and ultimately lifting it. Harris questioned the constitutionality of Judge Ali’s order, stating that it was an unwarranted judicial infringement on the power of the Executive to control foreign-aid distributions and hallowing arguments from the Unitary Executive Theory. While acknowledging the government’s obligation to pay the reimbursements, she clarified that the order from Judge Ali was “arbitrary.”
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito stated that he “is stunned” by the Supreme Court’s ruling, arguing that the majority opinion essentially permitted a District-Court Judge to usurp an unchecked power to order the Federal Government to pay reimbursements amounting to $2 billion. Alito additionally argued that the “Sovereign Immunity” of the U.S government prevented the jurisdiction of the District Court and the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs against the Trump administration, citing the 1974 case of Edelman v. Jordan as precedent. Justice Alito then concluded his dissenting opinion by stating that the Court “rewarded an act of judicial hubris” and “imposed” a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.
Perhaps the most news-worthy outcome of the case was Justice Amy Comey Barrett’s unexpected decision to join the majority opinion. Considered part of the traditional conservative bloc on the Supreme Court, Barrett’s decision shocked many commentators and journalists, primarily commentators on the Right. On social media platforms, critics labeled her as “evil,” a “DEI Hire,” and a “Closet Democrat.” Well-known conservative influencers, including Charlie Kirk and Jack Posobiec, have also joined the outrage. This sudden reversal in the “MAGA” movement, who originally supported the appointment of Justice Barrett, prompted backlash from many conservative legal scholars and commentators, such as Leonard Leo, a prominent member of the conservative Federalist Society, who defended Barrett from criticisms of her vote.
