Supreme Court rules against Trump on foreign aid, spelling potential problems for DOGE

[jmdrake]

This is why Thomas Massie and Rand Paul are RIGHT and Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Matt Gaetz are WRONG! The only way these cuts happen for real is through congressional action.

Supreme Court rules against Trump on foreign aid. Will it do the same on DOGE cases?

On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court decided against the Trump administration, refusing to halt a judge’s order to resume billions in foreign aid payments.

www.gzeromedia.com

On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court decided against the Trump administration, refusing to halt a judge’s order to resume billions in foreign aid payments.


In an unsigned 5-4 emergency ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals to uphold the decision by the Biden-appointed Judge Amir Ali to unfreeze nearly $2 billion in payments from the US Agency for International Development pledged under previous administrations.

“I am stunned,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a dissent signed by the bench’s other three conservatives.

The majority did not explain the decision. Noting that the deadline for resuming payments passed last week, it sent the case back to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to “clarify” when the Trump administration needed to comply with the order.

Dog days ahead for DOGE? USAID isn’t the onlyagency facing steep cuts mandated by White House adviser Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. The various funding slashes are facing mounting legal challenges that are winding their way through lower courts. With rulings stacking up against DOGE, conservative legal scholar John Yoo complained to Fox News last week that “activist judges” in lower courts “misunderstand their proper role,” and surmised that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the Trump administration.


In a post on X, Boston University law professor Robert L. Tsai said Wednesday’s ruling represented an “important though limited brushback of DOGE and the strategy to evade constitutional constraints – though judicial battle lines are starting to be drawn.”
​

 

[nikcers]

They aren't going to win 100% of cases but the doge cuts are absolutely not going to hurt by reducing the deficit which is the elephant in the room.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-october-budget-deficit-jumps-257-billion-handing-hole-trump-2024-11-13/

 

[Invisible Man]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but what authority does that judge's order have, even if the Supreme Court does support it?

Suppose Trump just refuses to spend money that this judge says he has to spend, then what?

Congress could impeach him, which they can already do anyway if they want with or without a court order. But they won't.

The judicial branch has neither sword nor purse, only judgment.

 

[Madison320]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but what authority does that judge's order have, even if the Supreme Court does support it?

Suppose Trump just refuses to spend money that this judge says he has to spend, then what?

Congress could impeach him, which they can already do anyway if they want with or without a court order. But they won't.

The judicial branch has neither sword nor purse, only judgment.

Good question.

chatgpt says :

The U.S. Supreme Court has no direct power to enforce its decisions. It relies on the executive and legislative branches, as well as lower courts, to implement its rulings. Here’s how enforcement typically works:

1. Executive Branch Compliance – The President and federal agencies are expected to enforce Supreme Court rulings. For example, after Brown v. Board of Education (1954), President Eisenhower sent federal troops to enforce desegregation in Arkansas.
2. Lower Court Implementation – The Supreme Court's decisions set binding precedents that lower federal and state courts must follow. If lower courts refuse, litigants can appeal, potentially leading to further rulings or orders.
3. Congressional Support – Congress can pass laws that help enforce Supreme Court decisions or withhold funding from states or entities that refuse to comply.
4. Public and Institutional Pressure – Public opinion, media scrutiny, and professional/legal associations can push compliance. Noncompliance can lead to political and legal consequences.

While the Court’s rulings are the "law of the land," enforcement ultimately depends on cooperation from the other branches and state governments.

 

[nikcers]

Well that's exactly what Andrew Jackson famously said.


He said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it,"


Technically the Supreme Court is grabbing power here. USAID is an executive authority because it's part of the executive branch.

Once the Executive power transfered to Trump the executive power belonged to Trump and that power previously was used to offer and pay for foreign AID under the executive branch authority and Trump revoked that aid with an executive order.

The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 et seq. There is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development

Article II, section 1 provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States

Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson observed during the first Washington Administration: "the constitution has divided the powers of government into three branches [and] has declared that the executive powers shall be vested in the president "the transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether"

 

[FineSpeech]

But... I thought it was 4 dimensional chess?

 

[Anti Globalist]

What's stopping Trump from ignoring what the Supreme Court says? They ruled against Biden when it came to cancelling student loan debt but he didn't let that stop him.

 

[unknown]

The Supreme Fraud strikes again.

 

[unknown]

 

[nobody's_hero]

What's funny to me is that a republican judge at a lower level could simply reverse these decisions, which would fully show the blunder of the SCOTUS's recent decision that a lower-court judge can single-handedly block the executive branch.

So, for example, if some liberal judge says that the government can't cancel contracts, and orders the payments to continue, a republican judge could say that they can cancel contracts, and orders payments to halt.

Now what do you do?

The SCOTUS must admit that both judges' rulings have equal weight, or the double-standard becomes painfully obvious.

What the SCOTUS *should* have ruled on, is the constitutionality of these contracts, for things that the federal government has no business engaging in. (But we know they won't be so bold on that, because the slashes to spending would almost never cease, considering how much of what the federal government does is not authorized by the constitution).

What they've essentially done is made it so any yokel of a judge in one tiny area of the country can impact the nation as a whole (for better or worse). (and since all federal judges have equal weight, this would be a huge embarrassment to the SCOTUS if a conservative judge realizes this and counters the liberal judge, and I'd imagine they'll be revisiting this case very soon)