Judge says Trump has not complied with ruling on suspension of foreign aid

U. S. District Court Judge Amir Ali&nbsp, issued a seven-page get Thursday saying President Donald Trump’s administration may abide by a judge order to restart international aid money. He said his Feb. 13 restraining order was” evident” and warned authorities at the U. S. Agency for International Development and the State Department never to attempt to use different names or guidelines to prevent the judge’s order.

” The Court was not inviting Plaintiffs to maintain the suspension while they reviewed deals and legal government to come up with a fresh, post-hoc reasoning for the en masse disqualification”, Ali wrote. &nbsp,

” To the degree Plaintiffs have continued the cover suspension, they are ordered to immediately stop it”, he continued.

Ali said the Trump presidency has not yet provided the court with evidence to issue the command that its entire expulsion of foreign aid does cause irreparable damage. He added that they had also not provided evidence that they had fully explored the implications that the freeze could have on interests that rely on the aid.

He said the order “does not permit Defendants to simply continue their blanket suspension of congressionally appropriated foreign aid pending a review of the agreements for whether they should be continued or terminated. That is the very action that the Court temporarily enjoined”.

The order stopped short of holding Trump administration officials in contempt of court for not unfreezing the money. &nbsp,

In response to the ruling, a lawyer with the organization representing the foreign aid groups that originally sued over the funding freeze said Thursday evening,” The court has, twice now, ordered State and USAID to resume funding vital humanitarian programs. The government’s choice is clear: Comply immediately or risk a constitutional crisis”.

FROM ENEMIES LIST TO SHORT LIST: RUBIO’S RENAISSANCE LANDED HIM IN TRUMP’S CABINET

Shortly after Ali’s second ruling, the foreign aid groups filed a new motion saying six of their groups had not received payments on outstanding invoices since the original ruling was issued last week.

” Plaintiffs remain in largely the same position they were before the Court issued its order: their owed funds have not been disbursed, and they continue to suffer the same ( or worse ) irreparable harms”, lawyers wrote.