Justice Alito, who authored the dissent, said he was 'stunned' by the narrow majority decision.
Supreme Court temporarily allows Trump's freeze on USAID payments
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo predicts a 'momentous battle' in the courts over President Donald Trump's pause on funding for USAID and discusses the DOJ's request to the Supreme Court to allow Trump's desired firings.
Four conservative Supreme Court justices penned a blistering dissent Wednesday after the court majority rejected the Trump administration's request to continue a temporary freeze on foreign aid payments.
Justice Samuel Alito excoriated the high court majority for allowing a lower court judge to single-handedly determine the timeline for the Trump administration to pay nearly $2 million in payments for previously completed foreign aid projects – an order he called "too extreme."
In a scathing eight-page dissent, Alito called the decision an "unfortunate misstep" and one he said "rewards an act of judicial hubris" by the lower court judge, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali.
SCOTUS RULES ON NEARLY $2 BILLION IN FROZEN USAID PAYMENTS
Susan Schorr, of DC, holds an anti-Elon Musk sign and an American flag in protest in front of the headquarters for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on Feb. 3, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Pete Kiehart for The Washington Post via Getty Images)
"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? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise," Alito wrote.
"I am stunned."
He was joined in the dissent by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
While Alito and the other dissenting justices acknowledged Wednesday that the plaintiffs raised "serious concerns about nonpayment" for their completed work, they argued that Judge Ali's repayment order and time frame was "too extreme," as it gave the administration just two weeks to comply.
Supreme Court justices are seen attending Trump's presidential inauguration in Washington, D.C. (Ricky Carioti /The Washington Post via Getty)
"The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work," they said in their dissent. "But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response."
The 5-4 Supreme Court decision remands the case back to the D.C. federal court – and U.S. District Judge Amir Ali – to hash out the specifics of what must be paid, and when.
Retired United States Agency for International Development worker Julie Hanson Swanson, left, join supporters of USAID workers outside the USAID's Bureau of Humanitarian affairs office in Washington, Friday, Feb. 21, 2025. (Manuel Balce Ceneta)
At issue in the case was how quickly the Trump administration needed to pay the nearly $2 billion owed to aid groups and contractors for completed projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), at a time when the administration has issued a blanket freeze on all foreign spending in the name of government "efficiency" and eliminating waste.
The funds had been frozen as part of the administration's block on all foreign aid, prompting international groups and contractors to file a lawsuit last month, prompting the Trump administration to file an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John Roberts intervened, agreeing to pause the timeline to allow the full court to consider the case.
Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that while the plaintiffs' claims were likely "legitimate," the time set by the lower court judge, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, was "impossible." and "not logistically or technically feasible."
Judge Ali, for his part, moved quickly Wednesday to tkae action on the unpaid foreign aid case – setting a new court hearing Thursday afternoon to consider the matter.
In a minute order, the court said lawyers for both parties should come prepared to discuss a proposed schedule for the Trump administration to comply with the outstanding payments.
Justice Alito appeared to back that contention in the minority dissent Wednesday.
Fox News' Jake Gibson contributed to this report.
Breanne Deppisch is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital covering the Trump administration, with a focus on the Justice Department, FBI, and other national news.
