Politcal Ref's take on the Supreme Court ruling on a freeze in USAID spending, requiring the White House to unfreeze funds for services already rendered. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ET AL. v. AIDS VACCINE ADVOCACY COALITION, ET AL.

Political Ref’s Impression – TOO CLOSE TO CALL. Whether the Court will take Trump's more expansive view of executive powers in the long line of cases working its way up the chain is simply unclear at this point. This case does not shed much light on the question. See analysis and outline below.

Analysis - This is just a ruling an emergency order, so it is difficult to draw solid conclusions about the likely ultimate decision. The majority is ordering payments only for services already completed, not all contemplated payments. The dissent seems confident the government will ultimately win.

The majority doesn’t give any reasoning, however, for its decision. Contrary to the dissent’s opinion, we could reasonably conclude the majority thinks the contractors will ultimately win, which means the Court will not take the case and leave the lower court’s ruling in place, or decide with the same 5-4 majority that the White House can’t withhold these funds.

Just as easily one could reason they are only ruling on an emergency order for payment of services already completed, and not the issue at large. The majority, as it tends to do in emergency rulings, keeps its reasoning amorphous. We will just have to sweat this one out.

* * * * *

Political Ref's Outline of DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ET AL. v. AIDS VACCINE ADVOCACY COALITION, ET AL.

March 5, 2025 | Permalink

SIMPLIFIED PARTIES - Govt v. Contractors paid by USAID funds (Hereinafter ‘contractors’)

Majority unsigned – Roberts, Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson

2/13 district court enters TRO prohibiting govt from pausing payments from USAID funds.
The govt’s emergency app doesn’t challenge that order.
2/25 district court orders govt to pay the portion of paused payments for work already completed before TRO date of 2/13 by 11:59PM 2/26, the next day.
Govt filed an emergency stay shortly before 11:59PM 2/26 deadline and asked for an administrative stay
Roberts granted administrative stay until now, 3/5
Emergency app is denied
District court must clarify which payments must be made for work already completed under the original TRO

Dissent by Alito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh

District court likely lacks jurisdiction (Suggests he thinks contractors will lose on jurisdictional grounds)
Because the court likely lacks jurisdiction, why force the White House to spend $2 billion it likely won’t get back?
A majority of this Court thinks that money should be ordered paid by the court, which causes Alito to write, “I am stunned.”
District court based its TRO on the finding that contractors are likely to succeed in showing that Govt violated the Administrative Procedure Act (hereinafter APA).
Today the Court allows the abuse of constitutional power granted to courts by a federal judge.
District court labeled its order an unappealable TRO, which is wrong. It should have been labeled an appealable preliminary injunction to allow higher courts to review the decision without forcing the government to lose $2 billion of taxpayer funds.
Contractors were granted a portion of the ultimate relief that they sought without appeals courts having a say.
Govt has shown it is likely to win on grounds of sovereign immunity.
Sovereign immunity stops private parties from suing government for a liability that is paid with taxpayer dollars.
Sovereign immunity can be waived and money payments can be ordered, but only if the claim clearly links to money payments.
Contractors argue the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity applies, although it applies only to actions “seeking relief other than monetary damages.”
Relief sought here is for money payments rather than equitable relief.
Equitable relief does not typically allow orders for money payments.
Sovereign immunity bars the money payments ordered by the district court.
The district court’s TRO ordering immediate payments cited our cases relating to sovereign immunity, but it ignored the reasoning in them. We should expect more from a federal court.
Govt has a strong argument that the remedy ordered, paying money immediately, is an equitable remedy that burdens the govt more than is necessary to compensate for contractors’ injuries.
The courts ordered payments to contractors who are not even parties to this case, and presumably are claiming no injuries. This is not a case where universal relief is the only kind that is feasible. Contractors in this case only want $250 million, way less than the $2 billion ordered.
Govt will suffer irreparable harm from the district court order. It has shown it will not be able to recover the money after it ultimately wins.
Contractors have not shown irreparable harm on not getting the payments.
Today the Court rewards the district courts act of judicial hubris and penalizes US taxpayers $2 billion.