The Supreme Court has upheld a lower court order directing President Trump to disburse funds to contractors for the U.S. Agency for International Development which had already completed work for the government. In the 5–4 decision, the chief justice and Mr. Trump’s most recent court appointee sided with the three liberals. 

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, did not explain the rationale behind forcing the Trump administration to release the money, but simply wrote that the district court’s order to send “a portion of the paused disbursements” must be followed. The money which is set to be sent is “owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District Court’s temporary restraining order.”

“The District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines,” the chief justice writes. He was joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and all three Democratic appointees in the decision. 

In a blistering dissent, Justice Samuel Alito expressed astonishment that the court would order the executive to disburse money on the directive of a single district court judge. 

“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” Justice Alito asked rhetorically. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”

He was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the dissent. 

“The Government must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste — not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered. As the Nation’s highest court, we have a duty to ensure that the power entrusted to federal judges by the Constitution is not abused. Today, the Court fails to carry out that responsibility,” Justice Alito further writes. 

Toward the end of his dissenting opinion, the justice says that the court is hastily imposing a penalty not on the executive branch, but on the American taxpayer. Justice Alito goes so far as to accuse his five colleagues in the majority of “self-aggrandizement.”

“Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers. The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work,” the justice writes. “A federal court has many tools to ad- dress a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them.”

The plaintiffs in the case, led by the Public Citizen Litigation Group, a left-leaning advocacy organization, welcomed the ruling and said a hearing on their motion for a preliminary injunction in the case is scheduled for Thursday.

“Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court confirms that the Administration cannot ignore the law,” an attorney with the group, Lauren Bateman, said in a statement. “To stop needless suffering and death, the government must now comply with the order issued three weeks ago to lift its unlawful termination of federal assistance.”