Supreme Court rejects Trump administration’s push to rebuke judge over foreign aid freeze
You are looking at basically cascading effects that could have *** major impact on the ability of the Ukrainians to conduct the war. Analysts say President Donald Trump’s decision to pause military aid to Ukraine could be devastating for that country eventually. Officials say the freeze could last until Kith commits to peace talks. Trump and his senior aides want Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to acknowledge last Friday’s heated Oval Office dispute, according to officials. Allowed to be in *** position and right from the very beginning of the war, not in *** good position. You don’t have the cards right now. Officials say Zelensky’s response could be in the form of *** public apology. They say it needs to happen before *** discussion about aid or *** deal on Ukraine’s rare earth metals. I think that there was just *** certain sense of there was *** lack of respect. There was *** certain sense of entitlement. Analysts say Ukraine has enough in its stockpile. To sustain its current fighting pace for *** few weeks, it also has support from Europe, but gets its most advanced weapons from the US. Donald Trump is *** strong leader, and we need his strength to be on the side of the weak. Some analysts say pausing aid also could have negative implications for Trump. Support for Russia and support for Putin is not high, and so Trump is testing the bounds of how far he can go with this. I’m Miy Kiley reporting.
Supreme Court rejects Trump administration’s push to rebuke judge over foreign aid freeze
Updated: 9:31 AM EST Mar 5, 2025
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Trump administration push to rebuke a federal judge who imposed a quick deadline to release billions of dollars in foreign aid.By a 5-4 vote, the court told U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to clarify his earlier order that required the Republican administration to release nearly $2 billion in aid for work that had already been done.Justice Samuel Alito led four conservative justices in dissent, saying Ali lacks the authority to order the payments. Alito wrote that he is stunned the court is rewarding “an act of judicial hubris.”The court’s action leaves in place Ali’s temporary restraining order that had paused the spending freeze, Ali is holding a hearing Thursday to consider a more lasting pause.The majority noted that the administration had not challenged Ali’s initial order, only the deadline.The court told Ali to “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 administration has argued that the situation has changed because it has replaced a blanket spending freeze with individualized determinations that led to the cancellation of 5,800 U.S. Agency for International Development contracts and another 4,100 State Department grants totaling nearly $60 billion in aid.Ali ordered the funding temporarily restored on Feb. 13, but nearly two weeks later he found the government was giving no sign of complying and set a deadline to release payment for work already completed.The administration appealed, calling Ali’s order “incredibly intrusive and profoundly erroneous” and protesting the timeline to release the money.
WASHINGTON —A sharply divided Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Trump administration push to rebuke a federal judge who imposed a quick deadline to release billions of dollars in foreign aid.
By a 5-4 vote, the court told U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to clarify his earlier order that required the Republican administration to release nearly $2 billion in aid for work that had already been done.
Justice Samuel Alito led four conservative justices in dissent, saying Ali lacks the authority to order the payments. Alito wrote that he is stunned the court is rewarding “an act of judicial hubris.”
The court’s action leaves in place Ali’s temporary restraining order that had paused the spending freeze, Ali is holding a hearing Thursday to consider a more lasting pause.
The majority noted that the administration had not challenged Ali’s initial order, only the deadline.
The court told Ali to “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 administration has argued that the situation has changed because it has replaced a blanket spending freeze with individualized determinations that led to the cancellation of 5,800 U.S. Agency for International Development contracts and another 4,100 State Department grants totaling nearly $60 billion in aid.
Ali ordered the funding temporarily restored on Feb. 13, but nearly two weeks later he found the government was giving no sign of complying and set a deadline to release payment for work already completed.
The administration appealed, calling Ali’s order “incredibly intrusive and profoundly erroneous” and protesting the timeline to release the money.
