Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(92,652 posts)
Fri Sep 26, 2025, 05:49 PM Yesterday

Supreme Court lets Trump withhold billions in foreign aid, citing "harm" to president's foreign policy ability if denied

...which they say would outweigh potential harm to the plaintiffs.

Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday allowed President Trump's administration to withhold more than $4 billion in foreign aid funding, granting its request for emergency relief in a dispute over money that Congress has already approved.

The high court's decision effectively extends an order that Chief Justice John Roberts had issued earlier this month, which temporarily froze a district court injunction requiring the Trump administration to spend the money Congress appropriated for foreign-aid projects by the end of September. The court appeared to divide 6-3, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court's three liberals, dissenting.

The Supreme Court said in an unsigned order that the harm to the executive branch's ability to conduct foreign affairs appears to outweigh the potential harm faced by the plaintiffs, which are organizations and businesses that receive funding for foreign aid projects. It added that the decision "should not be read as a final determination on the merits. The relief granted by the Court today reflects our preliminary view, consistent with the standards for interim relief."

The dispute before the justices involves a tranche of more than $4 billion Congress approved last year for overseas development assistance, peacekeeping operations and to promote democracy globally, among other priorities. Mr. Trump notified Congress last month that he is seeking to claw back $4.9 billion before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 through a maneuver known as a "pocket rescission."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-lets-trump-withhold-4-billion-in-foreign-aid-approved-by-congress/ar-AA1NnUUi


...since the interests of the plaintiffs in this suit, which are organizations and businesses that receive funding for foreign aid projects, have been determined to mean squat opposed to the president's, I wonder of it would have made any difference to the court if it was Congress suing the administration, given that it's actually their prerogative in appropriating the funds?

Just asking for a future Democratic majority. Of course, we'll have to wait and see how the Court ultimately destroys precedent.
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court lets Trump withhold billions in foreign aid, citing "harm" to president's foreign policy ability if denied (Original Post) bigtree Yesterday OP
As long as these six are on the court JBTaurus83 Yesterday #1
probably bigtree Yesterday #3
Life saving aid................ Lovie777 Yesterday #2
How many victories IN A ROW has his criminal court B.See Yesterday #4
thing is, most of them are aquiescing without actually ruling on the merits bigtree Yesterday #6
Most of them can't be on the merits FBaggins Yesterday #8
exactly bigtree Yesterday #9
Next Dem trifecta needs to re-shape the courts Arazi Yesterday #11
SCOTUS has effectivly eliminated Congress and the Counrts are branches of government Takket Yesterday #5
in the process of bigtree Yesterday #7
Why should Dems compromise on any spending bills ever again if Traitor can just grab the $$ anyway Arazi Yesterday #10
So now TSF can override whatever Congress agrees to. Wonder what happened to 'checks and balances"? sinkingfeeling 23 hrs ago #12
With all the beneficial rulings, we should be grateful that the Supremes did not declare him the winner question everything 6 hrs ago #13
Scotus is usurping the Legislative Branch JCMach1 6 hrs ago #14

JBTaurus83

(683 posts)
1. As long as these six are on the court
Fri Sep 26, 2025, 05:54 PM
Yesterday

We could win both houses and the presidency and they would just block everything.

bigtree

(92,652 posts)
3. probably
Fri Sep 26, 2025, 06:06 PM
Yesterday

...but we still haven't really gotten to the question of Congress' authority, I'd guess because Congress hasn't been the plaintiff, just affected parties like state AGs, for instance.

I'm anxious to get to the question of Congress' authority in their appropriations, and the president's ability to thwart THEM, not the just the instruments of those appropriations.

Lovie777

(20,457 posts)
2. Life saving aid................
Fri Sep 26, 2025, 05:55 PM
Yesterday

therefore, the 6 RW justices only care about shithole than the lives the aid would have helped.

Got ya.

B.See

(6,766 posts)
4. How many victories IN A ROW has his criminal court
Fri Sep 26, 2025, 06:07 PM
Yesterday

handed to Trump? Think I read it was something like twenty? Criminal.

bigtree

(92,652 posts)
6. thing is, most of them are aquiescing without actually ruling on the merits
Fri Sep 26, 2025, 06:11 PM
Yesterday

...and doing this thing of making decisions without explanation, advantaging the 'shadow docket' emergency appeals that don't require explanation for rulings which are actually interim.

So the final decision on this hasn't been made. They still have to muddle over precedent to get to where they allow this, and make some decision on Congress' prerogatives, I'd think.

FBaggins

(28,447 posts)
8. Most of them can't be on the merits
Fri Sep 26, 2025, 06:15 PM
Yesterday

In most cases they’re dealing with preliminary injunctions by the lower courts. They don’t have a “merits” record to uphold or overturn

bigtree

(92,652 posts)
9. exactly
Fri Sep 26, 2025, 06:18 PM
Yesterday

...and we really haven't gotten to questions about Congress' authority vs. the Executive desires in any direct way; certainly not any suit actually coming from the republican held Congress.

Arazi

(8,391 posts)
11. Next Dem trifecta needs to re-shape the courts
Fri Sep 26, 2025, 06:41 PM
Yesterday

Every Dem in any election needs to promise to pack SCOTUS at minimum.

Roberts is proving himself worse than Taney. May he also go down in infamy forever

Takket

(23,250 posts)
5. SCOTUS has effectivly eliminated Congress and the Counrts are branches of government
Fri Sep 26, 2025, 06:11 PM
Yesterday

if, "if the president wants to do it (or not do it) is all that matters", then there is effectively no more judicial or legislative branch. drumpf alone is the sole arbiter of what gets spent and what it is spent on.

bigtree

(92,652 posts)
7. in the process of
Fri Sep 26, 2025, 06:15 PM
Yesterday

...mostly, I believe, because this republican majority won't stand up for their own authority under the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is content to let that muddle stand while not restricting the administration from continuing to do what have been illegal things in the long past.

We really haven't had a plaintiff coming before the courts arguing in behalf of Congress' prerogatives, yet.

Arazi

(8,391 posts)
10. Why should Dems compromise on any spending bills ever again if Traitor can just grab the $$ anyway
Fri Sep 26, 2025, 06:38 PM
Yesterday

What incentives are there for any opposition party to agree on any of it since their compromises make them look weak to their base and the President can just decide to spend it how he/she wants?

sinkingfeeling

(56,429 posts)
12. So now TSF can override whatever Congress agrees to. Wonder what happened to 'checks and balances"?
Fri Sep 26, 2025, 09:00 PM
23 hrs ago

question everything

(51,027 posts)
13. With all the beneficial rulings, we should be grateful that the Supremes did not declare him the winner
Sat Sep 27, 2025, 01:47 PM
6 hrs ago

of the 2000 elections

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court lets Trump ...