The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday approved an overreaching lower court order that effectively forces the Trump administration to distribute$ 2 billion in foreign give cash.
A demand by the federal government was denied by the majority of the high court in a 5-4 decision by the majority of the high court’s majority, which was denied by the government. According to SCOTUS, that law mandated that nonprofit organizations receive roughly$ 2 billion in foreign offers for “work already finished before the District Court’s temporary restraining order — by 11:59 p.m. on February 26.”
On February 13, Ali had recently issued a temporary restraining order to stop the Trump presidency from freely pausing the submission of such funds.
The leadership then requested that Ali’s Feb. 25 order be voided and that a stay of the ruling be granted, in response to a request made with SCOTUS a few hours prior to the above date. Chief Justice John Roberts imposed an operational keep hours before the deadline and sent the petition to the entire court for consideration.
The majority of the high court’s panel on Tuesday did not give a justification for the government’s rejection of the application. The Supreme Court did, however, get the D.C. district judge to” define what obligations the State must serve to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due consideration to the feasibility of any compliance timelines” given that the deadline for the challenged order has now passed and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings is still pending.
The government’s request was denied by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who are both Democrats officials. The app would have been granted by Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
Alito criticized the majority in his dissented view for allowing the lower court’s judicial excess, noting that the decision had” stunned” him.
Does a single district court judge, who is likely to be unconcerned, have the unchecked authority to compel the US government to pay out$ 2 billion in taxpayer dollars ( and is likely to lose that sum forever )? Alito wrote. A majority of this Court appears to believe otherwise, but the answer to that question should be an unwavering” No.”
[READ: Amy Coney Barrett’s SCOTUS Tenure Has Been Disappointing ( So far ) ]
The Supreme Court continued to point out that the Constitution’s “obligation to ensure that the authority entrusted to national judges is not misused” and that the high court “fails to carry out that duty” by declining to give the government’s request. He asserted in particular that the majority’s “most unfortunate misstep” actually “rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a$ 2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.”
Respondents voice serious concerns about nonpayment for finished work, and the District Court has clearly expressed its frustration with the government. However, Alito wrote that the relief requested was simply too extreme of a response. A party’s alleged nonfeasance can be addressed in a federal court, which provides many options. Self-aggrandizement within its purview is not one of them. I must respectfully dissipate because the Court does so today.
The Federalist staff writer Shawn Fleetwood graduated from the University of Mary Washington. He previously worked for Convention of States Action as a state content writer, and his articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Conservative Review, RealClearPolitics, and RealClear Health. Follow him on Twitter at @ShawnFleetwood
