The Supreme Court keeps backstabbing Trump!
In a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, President Trump’s administration faced a significant setback. The High Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, affirmed that the administration must pay nearly $2 billion to contractors for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This ruling came after a lower court found that the Trump administration had failed to comply with its obligations to unfreeze foreign aid funds, and the Supreme Court declined to block the decision.
This ruling is the latest in a series of decisions where the Supreme Court has not hesitated to push back against the executive branch, despite its conservative tilt. Critics of Trump had long worried that the Court would favor the president’s agenda. However, this latest ruling demonstrates that the Court, while conservative, is still willing to act as a check on executive overreach.
The case stems from President Trump’s first executive order in 2017, which halted funding for foreign aid programs and USAID projects unless they aligned with his administration’s priorities. This order was challenged in court, and U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring the administration to release the frozen funds. The Trump administration did not comply with the TRO, prompting further legal action, which led to the Supreme Court’s involvement.
The Court’s decision was a 5-4 vote, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting. These justices argued that the district court had overstepped its bounds and that the decision to mandate such a large payout was an extreme measure. They contended that a single district court judge did not have the authority to compel the U.S. government to make such significant financial commitments without congressional approval.
This ruling is not an isolated incident. Just a month prior, the Supreme Court sided against Trump in another case, declining his request to fire the head of the Office of Special Counsel. These decisions show that the Court, while not always aligned with the administration, is upholding its role as an independent check on executive power.
While the Trump administration has vowed to appeal these decisions, the ruling serves as a reminder that no branch of government is above scrutiny, and that even a conservative-majority Supreme Court can act as a counterbalance to presidential overreach. The $2 billion payout to foreign aid groups is a clear indication that the administration’s actions will be held to account, especially when they fail to comply with legal orders.