| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government Corruption |
| Supreme Court backs Trump in dispute over USAID funding |
| 2025-02-27 |
| [WashingtonTimes] The Supreme Court delivered a reprieve to President Trump late Wednesday, temporarily blocking a lower-court order that the administration pay nearly $2 billion in foreign assistance grant money by midnight. The Justice Department had sought a delay, saying the deadline imposed by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali was impossible to meet and trampled on the president’s powers. But the challengers, led by global health and AIDS groups, said some of them face “extinction” if they don’t get more federal money right now. They also said those relying on them will “face starvation, disease and death.” The justices, in a brief order, told the health organizations to file a response to the Justice Department’s arguments on Friday. The case is the second challenge to Mr. Trump’s executive actions to reach the justices, little more than a month after he took office. This challenge stems from Mr. Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order calling for a large freeze of foreign-assistance money. He said he wanted to conduct a review to ensure the money aligned with his goals. On Feb. 13 Judge Ali, a Biden appointee, issued a temporary restraining order halting the pause. After more back-and-forth, Judge Ali ruled on Tuesday that the federal government was still recalcitrant in releasing the money and ordered it out the door by the end of Wednesday. That money was to cover obligations that were already in place before the State Department carried out Mr. Trump’s pause. Mr. Trump’s lawyers first asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to delay the midnight order and, when that failed, rushed to the justices. Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris said the district court had “moved all the goalposts” by issuing an extraordinary order to pay out the money. She said the government “is committed to paying legitimate claims.” But she said the judge’s order would short-circuit the careful scrutiny Mr. Trump wants to deliver. “As a result, the government faces the possibility of being forced to expend enormous sums of taxpayer dollars without knowing whether those payments are for legitimate expenses,” Ms. Harris argued. |
| Posted by:Anguper Hupomosing9418 |
| #4 How about a new law that says any national injuction by a district court that gets overturned results in a 10 year felony conviction, disbarment and loss of citizenship. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2025-02-27 19:01 |
| #3 Dealywopper I read says first nationwide injunction was likely 1964, and remained relatively rare until the 2000s. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2025-02-27 16:11 |
| #2 I think Roberts is getting a hint. How come district courts can issue a nationwide injunction, but regional appeals court findings only apply in their specific region? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2025-02-27 10:59 |
| #1 Something has to be done about judicial activism. |
| Posted by: Grom the Affective 2025-02-27 01:44 |